FEC wants to regulate bloggers

[highnote]

PA,

I heard on NPR today that the Federal Election Committee wants to regulate political bloggers. Wonder if that will affect this site?

[PaceAdvantage]

Unless Holy Bull decides to run for Gov. of Kentucky, we'll probably be ok....

[Snag]

If I have heard it the right way, the review they are doing is to look at the funding behind the bloggs. Isn't it strange too that only NPR is saying anything about this?

I guess "Mckane and Findgold" want to be sure that they control the money in the upcoming elections ..............go figure.

[rastajenk]

A couple of articles from the same guy about how liberals have been losing out in the marketplace of ideas, so their response is: restrictions on free speech. They sure like to play the hypocrisy card, but this is the Ultimate Hypocrisy.

This one (http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_1_rush_oreilly.html) is rather lengthy, going into how McCain-Feingold, FEC regulation of the internet, and efforts to restore the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting are all related battles in the war on free speech. It's definitely worth a read.

The second one (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_dmn_blogosphere.htm) is a more condensed version of the first, focusing more on internet regulation. Both articles make this point: "...today's liberals quietly, relentlessly and illiberally are working to smother this flourishing universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations. Their campaign represents the most sustained attack on free political speech in the United States since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts."

[highnote]

If I have heard it the right way, the review they are doing is to look at the funding behind the bloggs. Isn't it strange too that only NPR is saying anything about this?


PA,

You aren't take any money from political action committees are you? :D

[GameTheory]

I'm about the only one I know that opposes campaign finance reform -- I think anybody should be able to contribute whatever they want to anyone (with the only provision being that all contributions to parties and candidates should be open and known) -- and this is one reason why. Once they ban direct contributions, they start to look to ban indirect support for your causes and issues. Restrictions on either kind of contribution essentially are restrictions on free speech. And the effect of these restrictions is that only the rich and/or those from political families (e.g. the Bushes, the Gores, the Kennedys, etc) can effectively run for office...

[lsbets]

I'm about the only one I know that opposes campaign finance reform -- I think anybody should be able to contribute whatever they want to anyone (with the only provision being that all contributions to parties and candidates should be open and known) -- and this is one reason why. Once they ban direct contributions, they start to look to ban indirect support for your causes and issues. Restrictions on either kind of contribution essentially are restrictions on free speech. And the effect of these restrictions is that only the rich and/or those from political families (e.g. the Bushes, the Gores, the Kennedys, etc) can effectively run for office...

You're not the only one who feels that way. While there is a lot I don't like about the way campaigns are financed, I do not like anything that I feel restricts freedom of speech - especially political speech. Most of these so called reforms are nothing more than ways to entrench the existing two party status quo.

[highnote]

I tend to agree with you, GT.

The first thing I thought would happen when contributions made directly to candidates was limited was that special interest groups would start making their own ads. The ones that come to mind are those negative ads toward Kerry from the Swift boat people.

So as far as I can see, nothing has changed.

Why not allow anyone to donate anything and make the list available.

If China wants to donate a billion dollars to Hillary in '08 let them. I'm sure if she disclosed something like that there would be so much backlash that no one would vote for her.

[lsbets]

One of the outcomes of McCain/Feingold that comes to my mind is George Soros' purchase of the Democratic Party.

[highnote]

I guess he thought the price was right.

[Snag]

GT, I'm with you.
Don't limit the money. Increase the information flow of where the money is coming from.

Isn't it stange that reform always equals limits.

[Tom]

Funny how everytime a bill is talked about restrticting freedoms, McCain's name is associated with it. This guy is poison, IMHO. I view him as as basically a wimp who is looking to get back at everyone who pushed him around as a kid. I do not like this dude one little bit. With all the real problems out there, this guy is running around looking to fix things that ain't broke.


Blogging is an expression of free speech - anyone has the right to post anything they want, it is up to us to have enough sense to know that blogs are about the last place you would go for information - right after the local bar, corner stool.

[highnote]

Local bar, corner stool is the next place that will have free speech restrictions placed on it. Especially if those damn PACs are greasing the palms of some of the local pub crawlers to encourage them to spread the gospel of their party. :D