March 6, 2005

FEC Update

As Captain Ed has already noted, this morning's New York Times addresses the issues raised by Bradley Smith's Thursday interview with CNET. Nothing in the article will comfort those of us who believe that free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy.

For example, here's what FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub has to say:

"People should not be alarmed," said Ellen L. Weintraub, a Democratic commissioner.

"Given the impact of the Internet," Ms. Weintraub said, "I think we have to take a look at whether there are aspects of that that ought to be subject to the regulations. But again, I don't want this issue to get overblown. Because I really don't think, at the end of the day, this commission is going to do anything that affects what somebody sitting at home, on their home computer, does."

And:

"We are looking at whether there is something short of a complete exemption for Internet activity," she said.

"One really good question that needs to be asked is, 'How do you value this stuff?' " she said. "Because we only track money - campaign money that people spend on campaigns - not their thoughts or their beliefs or their statements. Just when they spend money. So if something is done really cheaply, it's not going to rise to the level where it will meet our regulations anyway."

Translation: We have the power to regulate you if we want to, and we're going to move in on the Net in some way, at some time (no complete exemptions here, buster). But don't worry -- trust us with your sacred liberties -- because we're reasonable people. Besides, most of you don't amount to anything, and we're only going after the big guys."

The Times, to its credit, also interviewed the other two Republican members of the Commission, and their comments are anything but reassuring:

"I don't know how we get out of it at this point," said David M. Mason, a Republican commissioner. "We have a ruling ordering us to go back and define a rule."

And:

"If you have a very successful blogger who attracts a lot of attention based on the commentary he or she is undertaking, and maybe that activity is coordinated with a candidate, what is the value of that?" said Michael E. Toner, the third Republican member of the commission.

"Everyone here believes this is one of the most important rule-makings the F.E.C. is going to do this year," Mr. Toner added, "mainly because the Internet got millions of people involved in politics. What we do here is going to have a major consequence of how people are involved."

The Times also points out that the three Republicans on the FEC voted to appeal the ruling of U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's decision that a 2002 FEC ruling exempting the Internet from regulation, but that the three Democrats on the Commission voted not to appeal that provision of the decision. That means that, as we've said before, the FEC is left with no choice, legally, but to explore how the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act can be applied to the Net. Ellen Weintraub's comments show, again, that the question isn't whether or not any regulation is coming to the Net, but what it will do, and how.

More bloggers are looking into the issue, also, and their reports back up the fears expressed here and elsewhere. Via Steve Bainbridge, Kevin at Wizbang looks at the 2002 Congressional testimony by FEC Commissioner David Mason, which he calls chilling -- check it out and you'll agree.

Also via Steve, Tom Smith at Right Coast writes:

I certainly hope all this anxiety of the threat of FEC regulation of the blogosphere is misplaced. But it's not too early to express the opinion that they can stop us from blogging and saying whatever we think, especially about political candidates, when they pry our keyboards from our cold, dead fingers. I mean, really. If some combination of the FEC and the courts really start to say, oh, you can't say that on your blog within 90 days (or whatever) of election day, I think we are really talking about a time for civil disobedience. Think Poland, Lebanon, Tianamen [sic] Square. OK, not Tianamen [sic] Square, but the rest. There are too many of us, and too few of them. Just let them try to squelch this new realm of free speech.

Michelle Malkin has some further thoughts this morning. See also, from yesterday, Pejmanesque and various posts at Red State, which is all over the issue.

— Winfield Myers

| Mar. 6, 2005 | 9:08 AM