The response to the Federal Election Commission complaint I filed has been harsh and swift. I expected as much, but unlike most who simply follow the herd, I'm not inclined to change my opinion because a few people tell me I better stay on the reservation.
There is one point that I wanted to respond to that has been made repeatedly. That is the fear that the FEC will regulate the political speech of bloggers and we'll all be doomed. Now, this fear isn't entirely unwarranted with the insane censorship rules of a certain soon-to-be ex-presidential candidate (i.e. John McCain). Let's assume for a moment that my complaint is successful and the DailyKos does have to file disclosure reports to the FEC (note: they wouldn't be shut down).
The argument is that political speech should be free of the FEC all together, so I shouldn't be filing complaints. Let me get this straight, because you're free to blog we should ignore the myriad people who do have to register with the FEC and are subjected to their onerous rules? Free speech is vindicated as long as bloggers can post their half-baked unthinking diatribes to the web, even though hundreds and thousands of others who actually do have intelligent contributions are silenced by the FEC? I want everyone to pay attention to the next quote; this is your media sound bite from me for the day:
This "I've Got Mine" attitude to freedom that allows people to overlook to censorship of other Americans simply because they're not currently in the cross-hairs is as disgraceful as it is un-American. The rights apply universal of the media chosen. The fact that so many people are willing to overlook the FEC regulation of other forms of political speech simply because they don't have to worry about it is a strong public statement that they are undeserving of their freedom.I refuse to live in fear of my government. This is a free nation where the power is from the people. I'm not going to adopt weird détente stances that allow me to overlook the abuses of freedom of others simply because I'm not caught up in it. I will not be afraid to petition my government to change bad and unpopular laws. I'm frankly ashamed that so many of my fellow bloggers and journalists would rather quake in fear in front of the FEC. They work for us, not vice versa. Start acting like it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ray Ellis
"Free speech is vindicated as long as bloggers can post their half-baked unthinking diatribes to the web"
Your own words damn your argument.
2 - Dr Dreadful
I know it's a little long, but shouldn't this have been a comment on yesterday's post rather than a whole new article in itself?
Now, unless we're careful, we're going to find ourselves jumping back and forth between threads and not getting any coherent discussions going.
Just seems like an abuse of contributor privilege...
Dave - you're the politics editor - whadda you think?
3 - gonzo marx
John - you know i strongly disAgree with you on many topics, there are times when it goes far beyond driven twixt your Views and mine...
so much so that if we were to meet up IRL, either you would have to shoot me in self defense or i would gleefully spend hours breaking bits from your personage until you begged to give money to Planned Parenthood and the ACLU....
but i digress.... ( was teasing...really!)
i will Defend to the bitter End your absolute Right to spout off your silliness and to follow the course of Due Process as you see fit...
anything less would be anathema
Excelsior?
4 - Dave Nalle
Dave - you're the politics editor - whadda you think?
I published it, which suggests I think it's fine. He's branched out into another aspect of the issue, and the thread over on the original article has pretty much run its course.
Dave
5 - Christopher Rose
Doc D, Blogcritics doesn't limit what writers choose to write about, it only makes sure they are well written.
It's not up to Dave or any other Editor to decide if an article should be published unless it is extremely poorly written or just blatant hate or something like that. Blogcritics is wonderfully tolerant of a broad range of issues.
6 - gonzo marx
one caveat...grammar and punctuation zealots and fanatics!!!
they got zero tolerance there
but ya can say just about anything...
Excelsior?
7 - Andy Marsh
they are just a bit anal about punctuation ain't they gonz?!??!
8 - gonzo marx
hey now...i fixed my propensity for creative capitalization and punctuation in my last two Articles...
but thas another Story...
yer up early, Andy...
Excelsior?
9 - Adam B.
The one thing the author fails to respond to is that he has no legal argument and the FEC regulations regarding the Internet are strongly protective of individual liberty.
If you believe there are other FEC regulations worthy of legal challenge (or to-the-letter enforcement to prove their invalidity), go after them. I might well join you. But they actually got the Internet stuff right.
Finally, for someone who's trying to curtail 120K+ DailyKos users' rights to participate in political activity online, waving the "anti-SLAPP" flag is ironic indeed.
10 - John Bambenek
No one is trying to silence your readers... people are trying to make sure political committee stop trying to get around the law which requires disclosure.
Filing a few reports isn't going to silence you.
11 - gonzo marx
well John, the side effect is that you can never bitch about "frivolous lawsuits" and such anymore, cuz you KNOW some smart ass will link back to this and the previous article
just a chuckle...
Excelsior?
12 - John Bambenek
FEC complaints aren't lawsuits. They're not even analagous to lawsuits. Hell, we should be so luck if lawsuits are handled the same was as FEC complaints.
Before the Daily Kos is even served with this, 4 commissioners have to decide there is probable cause. Which means they won't even get involved until it is, by definition, not frivolous.
The judiciary should take note.
13 - gonzo marx
frivolous procedures...
but i can agree that lawsuits need help...i'm all for a review board to look shit over , and if found "frivolous" then the litigant's LAWYER gets no fee and pays all court costs for being an idiot in front of the bar...on the other hand, jury Awards should be left the fuck alone for when the case is NOT frivolous
could just be me
Excelsior?
14 - John Bambenek
I think if you made it possible to discipline lawyers for filing frivolous lawsuits (like you can with SLAPP suits) then you'd see a lot less of them.
Jury awards... well I wouldn't disagree if it weren't for some real patently ridiculous awards out there. For instance, one smoker being awarded half the net worth of Phillip Morris... how does that even make sense?
15 - gonzo marx
what price Life?
that's what we have juries for, i'd rather see pertinent suits make it into the courts, and ludicrous fines levied against those who have been proven to demonstrate criminal behavior/negligence/deliberate deceit
but this is another discussion for another time, i just advocate the balance be fair...nothing frivolous, but heavy measures for those caught fucking up...neither side gets their way completely, and the public at large is served in a manner of last resort
Excelsior?
16 - Nancy
John has every right to file a complaint, as I & several others have stated. It isn't a lawsuit. It's just a complaint. Frankly (& I have my solid Leftie credentials here on BC) if DK is a political organization - or Fox, or any other concern - then it ought to be required to state where its funding is coming from. That's only fair. Actually, this ought to be extended to any group which makes political statements, even if it's just the Girl Scouts. People should be able to be aware of where the backing - the sponsorship, the hidden agenda, if you will - is coming from, instead of having to swallow that such & such a statement is from the "People for a Concerned This or That" which is usually lies & bullshit for some corporate controlling concern or other trying to sound like ordinary folks.
In any event, even if John HAD filed a lawsuit, let him. It's his time & money. And as far as I know, a good many frivolous lawsuits ARE penalized: the person bringing the lawsuit is usually made to bear the court costs plus various other costs awarded to the defendant, sometimes to a considerable amount. I would agree there should also be some way to penalize the accomodating lawyer, but that will never happen, seeing as lawyers are the ones who write all the laws, & the bastards in congress are the biggest, most entrenched lawyers of all.
Anyway, John - I don't agree with your assessment, but keep assessing. It's your right to do so.
17 - Adam B.
John, not only are you wrong on the law, but you're wrong on FEC procedure too, as well as being ignorant of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The "four commissioners" thing is patently false.
Whether one characterizes it as a "complaint" or a "lawsuit," it's still a frivolous thing that has already taken up too much of my time to respond to.
18 - John Bambenek
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure don't apply to FEC complaints... if you're a lawyer, you should know that.
Second, it's well known "frivolous" lawsuits aren't punished, the threshold is very very high.
Third, not all lawsuits are in federal court... I shouldn't have to explain our judicial system to a lawyer... one whose services are apparently not in very high demand I might add.
Fourth, you know you have no cause of action anywhere in any place under any law to come after me in court, yet you continue to make SLAPP suit threats...
Fifth, before lecturing me about the law, I suggest you actually READ the law instead of quoting various summaries... you can do so here, particularly 437g. You know, the part where is says "an affirmative vote of 4 of its members, that it has reason to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit, a violation of
this Act or chapter 95 or chapter 96 of title 26, the Commission shall, through its chairman or vice chairman, notify the person of the alleged
violation."
Please read the law... you're really tranishing the reputation of the field.
19 - Adam B.
You said, "I think if you made it possible to discipline lawyers for filing frivolous lawsuits (like you can with SLAPP suits) then you'd see a lot less of them."
I pointed out Rule 11. Said nothing about whether it applied here. Oh, and from 437g?
"Within 5 days after receipt of a complaint, the Commission shall notify, in writing, any person alleged in the complaint to have committed such a violation. Before the Commission conducts any vote on the complaint, other than a vote to dismiss, any person so notified shall have the opportunity to demonstrate, in writing, to the Commission within 15 days after notification that no action should be taken against such person on the basis of the complaint."
20 - John Bambenek
I was wrong on getting notice, but you were wrong and hysterically so on the patently false crack about 4 commissioners... you're a lawyer you have no excuse.
Rule 11 has rarely if every been applied to lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits, at least in the general case in how that word is used. For the most part, it is used for making false claims.
In fact, I'd read up on that rule while your at it, considering you're the one making SLAPP suit threats.
21 - Adam B.
You claimed, "Before the Daily Kos is even served with this, 4 commissioners have to decide there is probable cause."
Will you now concede this is false?
22 - John Bambenek
I already did, it should read "before this goes anywhere, 4 commissioners need to agree" will you concede that your SLAPP suit threats are illegal and unethical?
Will you agree that you have no grounds whatsoever to go after me for costs?
Will you concede that your hysterical scaremongering about how the FEC is going to shut down the Daily Kos is false?
Didn't think so.
Should you be billing some clients now?
23 - moonraven
The writer of this piece says he refuses to live in fear of his government.
Fine, get rid of that government, then.
Stop flittering around in the tiny branches--go for the trunk!
And Chris, there is absolutely no guarantee of well-written articles on this site. In fact, most of them are very poorly written and would not pass muster in a Composition 101 class.
24 - Adam B.
You've still got it wrong, John. I'm done with the public lectures in law.
25 - John Bambenek
Good, Adam, because your lectures are contradicting the law as written.