A goodly number of PDF contributing editors are either testifying or working hard to lobby the Federal Elections Commission regarding its proposed rulemaking on political commentary on the Internet. That makes it hard for us not to claim first dibs on any conversation going on out there about the role the commission might play in regulating spending in support of speech online.

So, we're claiming them. Read what we've published by former Commission staffer Allison Hayward. Or check out PDF contributing editor Mike Krempasky's testimony along with his other FEC-related comments and commentary at Redstate.org. Or, have a look at the site that Mike K. and his Democratic counterpart, contributing editor Michael Bassik have up at The Online Coalition.

Now, I've gotten a fair amount of grief from lots of different people on what is sometimes seen as my somewhat cavalier attitude toward the threat of FEC regulation of my own site, Politics From Left to Right. Both Mikes have warned me in the sternest tones that I'll come to regret my decision not to be more vocal. After all, my site fits all the criteria for one the commission wants to know more about through its proposed filing requirements and disclosure rules. The site is about politics, it's incorporated, and it accepts advertising. And, well, I kinda have a big mouth and lots of spare opinions. On top of that, at one time the site was financially supported by a local San Francisco civic organization.

But, as someone who calls herself a "stand alone journalist," I'm standing away from the FEC dispute. It's an interesting collision of politics and technology, don't get me wrong. The commission's bone-headed ideas about how the Internet works – they think it's TV 'cause there's a screen – are part of a much bigger story about the dawning of a truly networked society. And on the network, no one is in charge. There can be rules – that's what the Supreme Court has said with its Grokster decision – but no authority sits in judgment of what's good or bad. The network decides.

The idea that the Federal Elections Commission is going to set up exemptions for media, and that the body will decide who gets what, strikes me as uh, un-American. Or, if you're a lawyer, a violation of that part of the U.S. Constitution that talks about freedom of speech. Since when – and, more importantly, why? – is the U.S. government in the business of deciding who's press and who isn't?

By coincidence, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed just in time to play an unexpected role in how readers, writers, reporters and editors determine credibility in this networked world of political commentary. So its provisions are becoming a way for many confused people – like the folks who like their press tagged and behind the rope line and the reporters who want to hold back potential competition – to organize their thinking. It's easier this way. Once legitimacy is granted, everything's okay. We can go about our business knowing that the hordes are still well outside the gates.

There was similar reasoning at work in the discussion that took place about Jeff Gannon/James Guckert's press credentials and access. Liberal bloggers cried outrage: How could this part-time hooker get access to the White House Press Room? Well, as a hard-working blogger proved a few weeks later, pretty much anyone who says she's working press gets access in Washington. That's not to say there wasn't something just a little funny about Gannon. There's something a little funny about all con artists. Calling for better regulation of the press – or better policing of the White House press room – is setting up a standard similar to the one the FEC is contemplating. It suggests that someone in government is going to determine who's "legitimate" press and who isn't.

I'm not playing ball here. Not for a minute. And with good reason. The idea that a contentious story or column could result in someone's credentials being pulled becomes very real when those credentials are supervised by the government. What's given can be taken away. And it can be taken for the wrong reasons. What's earned, on the other hand, stays with you.

Bloggers are making a mistake here, with all their worry about credentials and media "exemptions". In the rush for legitimacy – not to mention their engineers' and lawyers' love of order, and their good-hearted attempts to learn the reporters' rules of the game – many bloggers are playing into the hands of those who would like to bring control to this chaotic world. That's an understandable urge. But it's not one that the independent-minded, or for that matter, anyone with a real respect for the power of the network, should support.

Legitimacy is earned. Every day. That's why, back when there was real media competition, folks used to say that a reporter was only as good as her last story. It's an aphorism that could easily be updated: You're only as good as your last post. And you don't need the FEC to tell you that.

Campaigns & Elections
Chris Nolan's blog | email this page | delicious | digg | technorati