The failure of the Online Freedom of Speech Act has provoked intense anger in Left Blogistan (pictured), directed mainly at its own representatives in Congress, and those interest groups supporting "government reform."
It's easily dismissed as a left-wing copy of the right's anger over the Miers nomination, except that while Bush eventually pulled Miers and gave the right what it wanted, liberal bloggers are not going to get what they want, which is an exemption from the demands of the McCain-Feingold Act.
The rage is especially acute against the Pew Charitable Trusts, which worked with other liberal foundations to pass campaign reform and then beat back the Online Freedom of Speech Act. For the first time, liberal bloggers are comparing Pew with the right-wing Scaife, Olin and Heritage Foundations, and not in a good way either.
Regulations for the Internet under McCain-Feingold have not yet been finailized, and while the left rages, let me offer another view..
Stop fretting.
The idea that you won't be able to post a blog that discusses politics without filing papers with the Federal Election Commission is, frankly, ludicrous. It won't happen.
What is likely to happen is that political spending on blogs, on Internet ads, and on other forms of online manipulation will be controlled. If candidates spend dollars on bloggers, or on Web sites, or on Internet ads, that will have to be reported. Same thing with interest groups.
Will sites like Dailykos and Redstate have to register? I don't know. Frankly I doubt it. The election laws are about money, not speech. The idea behind them is that money is not speech -- money is money and speech is speech. But neither DailyKos nor RedState represent money. Their costs are relatively modest.
If the FEC rules go beyond this -- if an attempt is made to control Duncan Black or Jonah Goldberg, then we can revisit the issue. Then the issue will be revisited, first in court and then in Congress, with real examples, and real harm done.
That's the way the system works. The law is written, the regulations are promulgated, cases emerge from the enforcement, actions are appealed, and only then do we really know what's going to happen. The people who are complaining the loudest about this, ironically, are all so-called "political pros." They know this.
Until someone really tries to shut you up, chill.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Thuktun on November 7, 2005 02:43 PM writes...
Indeed. The bill had an emotionally-charged name. If you voted against that bill, were you against online freedom of speech? Of course not. No more than you were a traitor if you voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, or indecent if you voted against the Communications Decency Act, and so on.
Permalink to Comment2. kos on November 7, 2005 04:58 PM writes...
Will sites like Dailykos and Redstate have to register? I don't know. Frankly I doubt it. The election laws are about money, not speech. The idea behind them is that money is not speech -- money is money and speech is speech. But neither DailyKos nor RedState represent money. Their costs are relatively modest.
Problem is, the FEC has ruled in the past that speech is money. So, if I add a hyperlink to a congressional campaign, that link is promotion, hence it's got a numerical worth. If the campaign then raises $1,000 from that hyperlink, the value of that link is suddenly $1,000. If the candidate raises more than the $2,100 limit off that link, I have just violated campaign laws.
And that's just one example. This shit is much more complicated that I think you realize.
And in any case, we're not the ones trying to change the law. We're saying exactly what you are saying -- when there are violations, then try to change the law. But the impetus for this change in law are fantastical scenarios of Haliburton monster blogs and the like, not anything rooted in reality.
So we say to the reformers -- "Until someone really abuses the system, chill."
Permalink to Comment3. Adam on November 9, 2005 07:51 AM writes...
And just to pile on -- it's the fact that DailyKos.com is in incorporated that could potentially make anything it says about a federal candidate into an illegal corporate contribution.
Another nightmare? Group blogs. If they spend $1000 on server costs and other expenses during the course of an election cycle, and use some of their blog to write about federal candidates, then they're probably political committees with significant filing and disclosure requirements.
Money that candidates spend on the Internet already has to be disclosed -- Thune disclosed the payments to bloggers in his regular filings (but no one seemed to notice). The question is whether to bring bloggers themselves under FEC jurisdiction.
Permalink to Comment4. Nate on November 10, 2005 11:13 AM writes...
I think Dana's assertion here,
"The idea that you won't be able to post a blog that discusses politics without filing papers with the Federal Election Commission is, frankly, ludicrous."
... is only mostly correct; it's kind of like saying, "the idea that you'll be hit by lightning while pissing outside is ludricous". Most online commentators/activists will never be threatened under this law, but I'd bet you a dollar that there will also be some very unlucky victims.
Permalink to Comment