A very interesting quote in today's Federalist Patriot that could be a headache for me and thousands of other bloggers:
...the full effects of McCain-Feingold are just about to hit. As it reads, the 2002 law regulates political advertising in coordination with a candidate's campaign appearing on "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general-public political advertising." At the law's inception, the FEC wisely reasoned that the wording of this particular statute did not apply to the Internet -- references to the Internet and the World Wide Web were included elsewhere in the law, so Congress must have intentionally omitted it here.
Then the reformers struck again. The boondoggling duo of McCain and Feingold sued the FEC, insisting that regulations on political speech did in fact apply to the Internet and to e-mail. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly agreed: "The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated-communications regulation severely undermines" the purpose of the campaign-finance law. The Commission's three Republicans couldn't convince any of the three Democrats to appeal the ruling, with the net result being that Big Brother is on his way to policing the cybersphere.
Under the law, which the FEC will have to enforce if Congress does not intervene, even a link to a candidate's website will be considered a political contribution. While the value of such a "contribution" remains uncertain, Bradley Smith, one of the FEC's three Republican commissioners, warns that FEC regulatory precedents don't bode well for the blogosphere.
"Corporations aren't allowed to donate to campaigns," notes Smith. "Suppose a corporation devotes 20 minutes of a secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign raises $35,000. Do we value the violation on the amount of corporate resources actually spent, maybe $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission has usually taken the view that we value it by the amount raised. It's still going to be difficult to value the link, but the value of the link will go up very quickly."
Sound bad? That's not all, warns Smith. "The judge's decision is in no way limited to ads. She says that any coordinated activity over the Internet would need to be regulated, as a minimum. The problem with coordinated activity over the Internet is that it will strike, as a minimum, Internet reporting services."
Under current law, however, "press exemption" is limited to a "broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication." This would bring the status of Internet-based publications -- such as The Federalist Patriot -- into serious question. So warns Commissioner Smith: "[Internet reporting services are] exempt from regulation only because of the press exemption. But people have been arguing that the Internet doesn't fit under the press exemption. It becomes a really complex issue that would strike deep into the heart of the Internet and the bloggers who are writing out there today."
The Internet is the ultimate frontier of truly free speech. Its ubiquity has made it a powerful tool for the spread of ideas and democracy around the globe. While the unparalleled access to information offered by the Internet certainly has its moral and legal pitfalls, its benefits far outweigh all negatives. If, however, "reform" is allowed to have its way and Congress fails to ensure the Internet's continued independence by repealing those parts of McCain-Feingold that impinge upon free speech, the future of this column, and others like it, is anything but certain.
Luckily, it does sound like somebody else has noticed this if you believe this Washington Times article. However, what any of this does not do is get rid of these unconstitutional restrictions on political speech.
This is the way I look at it, as a timeline.
Spring 2000: John McCain is buried in the South Carolina primary after some impressive early wins. As other conservatives drop out of the running, George W. Bush gathers enough momentum and raises enough money to wipe out McCain for the GOP presidential nod.
November 2000: In one of the closest and most bitter elections in our history, George W. Bush wins the electoral vote despite losing the popular vote by less than 1%. Democrats immediately cry foul in Florida, putting the result in doubt for weeks and earning Bush perpetual emnity of most Democrats (including, by definition, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.)
January 2001: You have the two Senators above joined together to create the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform package.
June 2001: In the House, Democrat Martin Meehan of Massachusetts and RINO Christopher Shays of Connecticut put together the House version of campaign finance reform.
March 27, 2002: Having been combined and smoothed out of the petty House and Senate differences, the so-called campaign finance reform is signed by President Bush, who expresses reservations about its Constitutionality.
2004: Hundreds of "527" committees spend millions on advertising, the majority of which is supportive of John Kerry. However, George W. Bush wins reelection by a majority of both electoral and popular votes.
Here is a short summary of the bill and court fight from opensecrets.com.
What really irked me when all this came out was that there was a dependence on the Supreme Court to clean this up and sort out what was Constitutional and what was not. I think President Bush was as shocked as anyone that the Court found it compliant. But I wasn't.
Currently we have a court that is split into two camps...unfortunately, the judicial activist camp is the majority. That would be Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and generally either one or both of Kennedy and O'Connor. The constructionists tend to be Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. In the CFR case, the 5-4 split was the four activists joined by O'Connor.
I'm a believer in free speech. I write this blog because I want as many people to see my opinions and arguments to back them up as possible. That's why it's "news and views from Maryland's Eastern Shore." And dammit, if I ever got enough money to where I could dump millions into a campaign or candidate I believe in, then that is my RIGHT as an American, terrible Supreme Court decision be damned. Someone else has the perfect right to do the opposite. George Soros does it now.
I would like to see someone in Congress do more than Rep. Ney is doing with half-measures to soften the ill effects of CFR. Someone just needs to introduce a bill repealing all limits on campaign finance. Right now, the advantage in CFR goes to the media, who can report what they want as "news" without the target having an opportunity to defend himself. I want to truly level the playing field. Even one George Soros isn't a match for millions contributing in a small way.
