Political Bloggers Deemed "Media" By Court

Katherine Mangu-Ward | September 19, 2007

Both blogging empires and lone loonies are A-OK:

Political bloggers can breathe a sigh of relief, as the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has just resolved two complaints by determining that Internet blogging activities are not within FEC regulation because such activities fall within media and volunteer exemptions to the Federal Election Campaign Act.

In the matter of Daily Kos:

The site has charged a fee to place advertising on its Web site. It also has charged for providing "a gift of free advertising and candidate media services" by posting blog entries that support candidates.

The FEC considered arguments that DailyKos should be regulated as a political committee. However, the FEC rejected these arguments. Instead the FEC reasoned that the site is directly within the ambit of the media exemption and thus is not subject to regulation under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

The FEC evidently concluded that the DailyKos site is neutral, in that it is not owned or controlled by a particular party, committee or candidate.

Semi-freelance political bloggers are also good to go:

it was alleged that [Michael L.] Grace had leased space on a computer server to create a blog that specifically advocated the defeat of Mary Bono in a November 2006 election. Grace allegedly coordinated these expenditures with Bono's election opponent, David Roth.

The FEC determined in this matter that there had not been in-kind contributions to Roth's campaign emanating from Grace's blogging activities.

More on the legal perils of being a blogger here and here.

Comments

|9.19.07 @ 11:51AM|#

At this point I think we can count on the SCOTUS overturning this.

|9.19.07 @ 11:54AM|#

Some animals are more equal than others.

|9.19.07 @ 12:00PM|#

Does that mean I can hate them now?

Timothy|9.19.07 @ 12:01PM|#

FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!

It's a sad day when this is even a question: why on Earth do a bunch of citizens advocating and spending money to advocate for political change of their choice need to be regulated? Oh, right, because that's how the major parties maintain their oligopoly.

|9.19.07 @ 12:08PM|#

It's a sad day when this is even a question: why on Earth do a bunch of citizens advocating and spending money to advocate for political change of their choice need to be regulated? Oh, right, because that's how the major parties maintain their oligopoly.

McCain(R)-Feingold(D) says it all, doesnt it?

Corky|9.19.07 @ 12:14PM|#

But it was in the "spirit" of bipartisanship!

stoneymonster|9.19.07 @ 12:19PM|#

Grace allegedly coordinated these expenditures with Bono's election opponent, David Roth.

Van Halen would totally kick U2's sorry ass.

|9.19.07 @ 12:43PM|#

What's that phrase, "sharpen the contradictions?" or some such thing. May be we can get back to freedom of speech. Just new semantics, instead of being able to freely avocate because we're US citizens, now we can all advocate because we're all bloggers (does this post make me a blogger? Or a journalist? Or a handsome, 6'4" lumberjack - I read that you can be anything on the internet)

|9.19.07 @ 2:12PM|#

...does this post make me a blogger? Or a journalist? Or a handsome, 6'4" lumberjack...

He's a lumberjack, and he's daniel k,
He blogs all night and he works all day.
He's a lumberjack, and he's daniel k,
John McCain can't tell him what to say

|9.20.07 @ 7:31AM|#

Thanks BP - that's hilarious! And I do occasionally wear girly clothes (I'm not gay - not that there anything wrong with that - I just like the smooth silky feel of women's panties - and the crotchless variety increases my freedom!)

|9.20.07 @ 1:12PM|#

daniel k - I didn't want to assume anything, so that's why I stopped where I did.