delicious
digg
technoratiI'd start by mentioning that on the Internet - as opposed to every other medium for communication - the means to reach large numbers of people with a competing message is not a finite resource - or even scarce, for that matter. A union can spend all it wants and not be able to compete with the blogs. Again, that's my view and not necessarily Bassik's or the Online Coalition's.
Today in the House of Represenatives, Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) introduced a companion piece of legislation to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's bill (S.678) to exclude the Internet from the definition of "public communication" in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.
This is a bill that deserves bipartisan support, and it's exciting to see it off to a good start.
In short - if this bill passes both houses and becomes law in the next 50 or-so days, the FEC rulemaking process will be rendered moot. Remember, the FEC is only creating regulations for Internet activity because Congress didn't specifically mention the Internet at all, and a federal judge ruled that even in the absence of specific direction of Congress, the FEC had to do so anyway.
This bill provides that direction, and creates that exclusion. It might not solve *all* the problems of regulation, but it's miles and away the best solution right now. I've already heard from some liberal colleagues in the blogosphere, and we're going to push this bill - and hard.
The blogosophere has proven extraordinary aptitude when it comes to attacking or stopping something, let's prove that we can be just as much a powerful influence when it comes to creating and moving something forward.
Full bill text as well as Represenative Hensarling's "Dear Colleague Letter" are available at RedState
What does all this mean?
First, I must admit that it was a pleasure to read such a short bill. I don't think I could have dealt with another hundred-page whopper.
What would this bill do?
1. If this passes, it wouldn't change a think. Campaigns would be able to coordinate freely with whomever they please, including 527s, unions, individuals, etc., as long as the coordinated activities are confined to Internet activities.
2. In addition, state parties would still be allowed to raise soft money and spend it online on behalf of federal candidates.
I can't think of a single party or candidate who took advantage of either of these exceptions in 2004 and most election lawyers I spoke with last year didn't even know these "Internet advantages" existed in the first place. All that might change now, but the jury is still out.
But what about the bloggers?
Ah, yes. The bloggers. Well, I think we'd still have to keep on top of the FEC to get them to give deserving bloggers the press exemption and others the volunteer or individual exemption.
I'll have to look into this a bit more, but that's my initial take.
By Michael Bassik at Thu, 04/14/2005 - 17:09 | email this page
Technology and the Internet are changing democracy in America. Personal Democracy Forum is a hub for the exciting conversation underway between political professionals, technologists, and anyone else invigorated by the remarkable potential of technology to engage citizens in the democratic process.
Recent blog posts
- Daschle's Health Care Response Video: Interesting, Or Not?
- Daily Digest: Renewing the Push for Open Government by Law, by Code
- Defense Department Voting Assistance Program Draws Congressional Fire
- Daily Digest: Obama as Clinton Redux, in More Ways Than One
- 'Twas a Good Month for Twitter
- Despite Mumbai's TV Network Crackdown, Attacks Spur Stream of Social News Coverage
- Daily Digest: Did the Internet Matter?
- The Transformative 120: Text Messages Prove a South African HIV Lifeline
- Daily Digest: Obama Looking Eager to Open 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
- Change.gov Starts to Go Interactive, Intensively
CATEGORIES
Click to see a complete list of categories
Navigation
© 2008 Personal Democracy Forum | All Rights Reserved |
And if this passes?
Mike--
If this passes, I presume it takes the court off the FEC's back. But does it leave the door open to all the potential forms of coordination that Michael Bassik described in his original article for PDF on this?
I know from talking to you and reading your work that you think just about any campaign finance regulation is bad, but I have yet to hear a justification for eliminating a century's worth of federal efforts to restrain the effect of concentrated economic power (in the form of corporate or union treasuries) on the electoral process.
It seems as though that's where the deregulators (a.k.a. the "all hands off the Internet" crowd) are pushing. If it's not, show me why not. Or show me why I shouldn't be concerned if it is.