Hit & Run off the Hook … for Now

Good news—the FEC has issued a draft advisory opinion (one step short of a Rule) determining that weblogs and other online publications are, within parameters, entitled to the same "press exemption" from campaign-finance restrictions that newspapers and television stations are. (Link via InstaPundit.)

Comments

[Daniel Montiel]

This is good, right? From what I scan, the blues like it. I haven’t seen a comment yet from the reds. If they both approve of this opinion, is that extra good or extra bad?

[gaijin]

The Government has given us continued permission to speak. How far we’ve come indeed.

[fyodor]

What would happen if weblogs and online publications were not exempted? I thought (based on what campaign finance supporters say, maybe a bad idea, I know) that the only thing (directly) regulated was giving money. We don’t give money to comment here. Are there donors to Reason that could fall under the law in lieu of this exemption?

[David]

fyodor,

Like the old saying says “time is money”. The time we spend composing our comments therefore could be construed as a campaign donation.

[Stretch]

If Reason linked to a politician’s website that could be considered a “contribution” in the form of advertising.

[gaijin]

Well if the government ever wanted to try and enforce these notions of ‘cash equivalent donations’, I guess they could use the same successful strategy that has stopped all the Zarqawi web postings in Iraq…

[Stretch]

Well if the government ever wanted to try and enforce these notions of ‘cash equivalent donations’, I guess they could use the same successful strategy that has stopped all the Zarqawi web postings in Iraq…

For “cash equivalent donations” coming from out of the country there’s nothing they can do. But it would be simple to levy fines on a site like Reason which, last time I checked, is not located in Iraq.

[fyodor]

So Stretch and David, is this just cynical speculation, or have the bastards actually done stuff like what you’ve described?

[mediageek]

Fyodor, as I understand it, under the wording of McCain/Feingold it is possible to interpret posting banners or linking to websites as a form of campaign contribution.

Like Bill said, it all depends on what your definition of “is” is.

If Reason linked to a politician’s website that could be considered a “contribution” in the form of advertising.

Yeah, and building a machinegun in your garage from scrap metal for your own personal use, or growing pot in your basement for personal consumption is interstate commerce.

[citizengnat]

I beleive Mcain/Feingold also directly banned certain types of political speech a certain period before an election. Anyone know more details on that?

[gaijin]

But it would be simple to levy fines on a site like Reason which, last time I checked, is not located in Iraq.

It’s not? I thought it was located in this cybernet space web thingy..

And so the new UnReason site links to some other IP with some other title…that could be in a garage in Iraq or south LA…that’s the point…hell a bunch of uneducated, rat-eating terrorists can figure that out, I’m sure the brain trusts here can…every time the govmint tries to stop speech online, they just get sidestepped…wasting everyone’s time and money in the process. Speech wants to be free.

[fyodor]

mediageek,

Fyodor, as I understand it, under the wording of McCain/Feingold it is possible to interpret posting banners or linking to websites as a form of campaign contribution.

Hmmm. So this is a possible interpretation, but sounds like the FEC has not prosecuted anyone for such at this time? FWIW, I fully oppose this law, and this possible interpretation sounds like one of many strikes againnst it.

At the same time, I wonder if we just make ourselves sound paranoid if we talk about a potential, possible interpretation as if the law was already being enforced that way.

BTW, excuse my ignorance, but was M-F in effect for the 2004 election?

[gaijin]

oh, and don;t forget how all the spam stopped after congress passed the CanSpam act…

[fyodor]

I beleive Mcain/Feingold also directly banned certain types of political speech a certain period before an election. Anyone know more details on that?

I think (and hope!) that’s just TV ads. Which is still fucked. But I think that’s all that’s covered under that. Or maybe it’s “negative” TV ads? Uh, my brain’s beginning to hurt…

[Stretch]

I think (and hope!) that’s just TV ads. Which is still fucked. But I think that’s all that’s covered under that. Or maybe it’s “negative” TV ads? Uh, my brain’s beginning to hurt…

It’s all advertising, not just television. I wouldn’t be allowed to run any ad supporting a candidate, negative or otherwise, as that amounts to a “contribution”. Obviously, the press gets a pass but it was unclear whether webpages would and if whether they could be considered advertising.

[Stretch]

And so the new UnReason site links to some other IP with some other title…that could be in a garage in Iraq or south LA…that’s the point…hell a bunch of uneducated, rat-eating terrorists can figure that out, I’m sure the brain trusts here can…every time the govmint tries to stop speech online, they just get sidestepped…wasting everyone’s time and money in the process. Speech wants to be free.

I’m not saying the could stop speech, but Reason is an American company with a real, physical location. If they “advertised” for a candidate on the site, it would be very easy for the government to fine them. Yes, if they really wanted to get information out there, they could, but that doesn’t make the government’s action any more tolerable.

oh, and don;t forget how all the spam stopped after congress passed the CanSpam act…

I can’t speak for the spam act, but the no fax/call list is big business. The company I worked for got sued for a cool $1million for sending a single fax to a company on that list. It was an honest mistake made by a advertising company we hired, but that doesn’t matter. We settled out of court for $100k, half from us and half from the subcontractor. Now I’m praying that a telemarketer calls me. Go figure.

[David]

Fyodor,

For me, it’s pure speculation based on the Santorum-Times Tribune FEC complaint, and the Seattle radio hosts who were fined for a gas tax initiative they promoted on the air. The air time was deemed to be a contribution.

Ihad a longer post about this earlier swallowed by the server with a note about first posts needing to be reviewed for malcious content. strange.

[jf]

Stretch:

Sweet. My dad and I have a business that has incessantly been junkfaxed. Do I understand you right that by filing scattershot $1,000,000 lawsuits we could collect a cool $100,000?

And if you don’t mind saying, what company sent your faxes?

[Captain Awesome]

I was under the impression that some politicians had used McCain-Feingold to threaten some radio discjockys for discussing things with listeners that they didn’t like under the logic that it was a campaign contribution.

[Stretch]

Sweet. My dad and I have a business that has incessantly been junkfaxed. Do I understand you right that by filing scattershot $1,000,000 lawsuits we could collect a cool $100,000?

And if you don’t mind saying, what company sent your faxes?

If you’re on the list and people keep sending them to you afterwards, you have legal recourse. The list is the key, which is why lists of legal numbers are a pretty good business. I don’t know the name of the company, as I worked in an entirely different sphere.

[Carl]

Hey, gaijjin: If you live where I live try and visit http://www.georgewbush.com. What you’ll see is? nothing. They block requests from IP addresses outside the US. The internet may seem virtual, but it’s still tied down to the physical world in a lot of ways. Just going to http://www.google.com while in Japan and being redirect to the Japanese version oughta teach you that.

[Seamus]

Back during the 1984 congressional race, I was persuaded to put a bumper sticker on my car by the argument that it was worth as much to the campaign as a $250 contribution. Taking account of inflation, I suppose this means that the FEC ought to be treating the display of a bumper sticker as a $460 in-kind contribution. Except, of course, for stickers on the bumpers of vehicles owned by the main-stream media, who enjoy a media exception.

[Viking Moose]

Seamus:
so this is why they are burning cars in france? campaign contributions of the broke (and they’re burning cars with Jean Marie Le Pen stickers?)

hokae. i’m good with that.

Carl: where are you ? hope you can see OSU-Michigan tomorrow 🙂

[gaijin]

Just going to http://www.google.com while in Japan and being redirect to the Japanese version oughta teach you that.

Hey Carl: I hear you…and I do understand about IP addressing…my bad for overemphasizing the out-of-country dimension in my example…all I meant was that, whatever the government does to block/trace/fine or otherwise attempt to deny free expression online, anyone with half the motivation can stay one step ahead of such unnatural laws.

[mediageek]

Hmmm. So this is a possible interpretation, but sounds like the FEC has not prosecuted anyone for such at this time?

That’s my understanding of it, but I’m not nearly as up on the subject as others here.

At the same time, I wonder if we just make ourselves sound paranoid if we talk about a potential, possible interpretation as if the law was already being enforced that way.

What’s the old saying? It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you? IIRC, this law also prohibits the someone for stumping for a candidate 90 days before an election. Actual reporters and whatnot are, of course, excepted. As I understand it, this is one of the things that’s really got a lot of people irritated about McCain/Feingold, with the ascension of blogging, there’s no longer a clear-cut delineation between who is and is not a reporter. Of course, the idea that you, me, or anyone else should be prohibited from buying ad time on the local radio or tv station 90 days before an election is offensively absurd.

BTW, excuse my ignorance, but was M-F in effect for the 2004 election?

I think so. It was the reason for all of the “I’m Guy Gladhander and I approve this message.” at the end of all the commercials.

[ChrisO]

Of all the bad things that Bush has perpetrated, failing to kill this nasty little monster will ultimately rank very high, long after the Iraq war is but a distant memory.

[Stephen Macklin]

They Just Don’t Matter
The solons of the FEC are apparently going to allow us to keep our right to free speech. I suppose they expect us all to kiss their rings in gratitude. Well they can kiss my ass.

They should not be deciding who gets to say what and when. The First Amendment of the Constitution is supposed to protect our right to free speech from just such abuses by the government. When free speech becomes something the government can decide to allow you it becomes something they can decide to deny you.

Government does not exist to hand out rights as exemptions to legislation designed to curtail them.

The FEC can take their exemption and shove it. I have the right to speak and I will do so regardless of what the FEC decides to try to do.

“If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.”