The idea that you should overlook others censorship simply because you aren't affected is as unamerican as it is dangerous.
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.…
Article comments
26 - Alec
RE: I will not be afraid to petition my government to change bad and unpopular laws.
But this is not what you are doing at all. You are attempting to set the hounds of the government on a site that you don't like.
I thought that most of the responses to your first post were mild, and well-considered.
And although I am not accusing you of doing the same thing, your desire to file a complaint reminded me of a local congressman here in Southern California who tried to file a complaint against two talk show hosts who had a little contest going called "Political Human Sacrifice" in which they targeted a Republican incumbent whose stand on immigration they did not like. The congressman accused them of using air time to in effect endorse and serve as a contributor to his opponent. One irony is that previously he had been their buddy. As long as they said nice things about him.
His complaint was, of course, laughed out of the commission room.
Please keep us posted on the results of your efforts.
27 - RJ
I do not believe that the DailyCommunist should have its "speech" regulated by the federal government. Nor should any other blog, for that matter.
But I do think that JB has the right, as a citizen, to file a complaint to the FEC if he wants to. And then the FEC will view his complaint and (hopefully) side with freedom of speech.
Of course, this whole issue would be moot if John McKennedy and his allies in the Congress (and an wildly supportive MSM) hadn't forced campaign finance "reform" down our throats in the first place (with Dubya signing the bill into law "with reservations").
When the gov't gets into the business of regulating free speech (especially political speech), these sort of things are bound to happen. It's a form of "rent-seeking" behavior - but instead of trying to distort the economic market, it's an attempt to distort the political speech market. Kinda like the "Fairness Doctrine" that lib Dems love so much...
28 - Franco
John,
I have read both your posts and most of the comments on each. I have read through you’re complaint file with the FEC July 23, 2007.
I have to commend you on your willingness to take a stand on such a heated and legal issue and at the same time maintaining FEC respect for Internet Freedom.
I appears that from what Adam B has posted on BC and DK he is …(1) cleanly missing your legal points as do most of the other posters (2) Adam B is making emotional legal threats against you over on DK and that only happens when someone is feeling heat.
Additionally Adam B is claiming over on DK that you are trying to stifle the speech of every member of the DK site. From every thing I have read so fare this has never been your intention but rather that DK fits the discription of the new FEC law requiring them to disclose there paid avertisers. Why Adam B would chose to propose such a fallacy is suspect.
It appears that you have a case well within the new letter of the laws of the FEC. Where the FEC decides to take this matter should be most interesting is seeing if they have the heart and mind to apply their new laws.
I know that you are aware that on March 28, 2005, in response to the federal court’s ruling in Shays v. FEC, the FEC approved the release of a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" ("NPRM"), proposing, among other things, to interpret a key term in BCRA " "public communication" " to cover certain Internet content.
The primary actions proposed in the FEC new laws concerning your filing on this new law are:
(1) The extend definition of “public communications” to include paid advertisements placed on third parties’ Internet web sites. Under the rules overturned by federal court, the term “public communication” had generally not included Internet communications. The term “public communication” is used in a number of important places throughout the FEC’s campaign finance regulations, and thus the inclusion of paid Internet ads has a repercussions in a number of areas.
(2) To expand the reach of the campaign finance “disclaimer” requirement to include paid Internet advertisements. Under the new disclaimer rules, people placing paid advertisements on the Internet would be required to disclose their name and address.
Like it or not, that is the new FEC law.
Your comback to Adam B calling you are “wanker” was pricless. We know where he started puberty. Seeing that Daily Kos is owned by a UK media conglomerate this goes deeper then some of us might want to know. It would appear that the Brights are back for another try.
29 - Gary McGath
You're not to blame for joining a lynch mob, it's the lynch mob's fault?
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
30 - Adam B.
Actually, Franco, so we're all clear on this; that 2005 thing was the proposal -- the FEC took testimony and thousands of written comments in 2005, and this 2006 document reflects the actual final rules. Please pay attention to the discussion of the media exemption and the rules regarding voluntary activity online.
31 - Franco
#30 Adam B.
Actually I was sighting from the FEC final ruling to Congress following my reference to the NPRM. Sorry I did not make that clear.
I only offered both to bring in the whole scope for anyone turly interested.
OK, lets get specific on the final ruling, which is no longer a "pay attention to the discussion" issuse, because it is now modified and expanded into current FEC/CFR law.
The FEC final Rules and Regulations Federal Register #18589 clearly states “The revised definition of ‘‘public communication’’ which now includes paid Internet advertising placed on another person’s website” The law is clear on this.
Adam, that is a disturbing assertion that you keep making against John's legally and well thought out filed complaint with the FEC. This fallacy keeps repeating itself in your posts. To try and spin-twist John’s complaint into something that it is not does not stack up.
The specific facts in John’s complaint filed with the FEC do NOT support your assertion. What is it that threatens you, and others, that you have to continually try and spin-twist it off the true facts
You’re stating that he wants to stifle and or shut down DK is spin. This is about disclose and nothing else and I know you know that.
Can you address why you and DK are so adamantly against and threatened by having to disclose the names and addresses of its advertisers it takes money from and posts those adds for them on the DK site. Is there something dreadful you and DK do not want to have to disclose? What the hell could that be? You are making yourself and DK look susbect by refusing to address the simple and clear reality of this filed complaint. Can you explain that?
Unless you want to take the 5th to prevent incriminating yourself and or DK on possibly bigger issues this disclosure might involve. Its not adding up Adam.
If you choose to take the “rules regarding voluntary activity online” and try and stack that up against ““public communication that now includes paid Internet advertising placed on another person’s website” and try your case in court you have that right and I support it.
But if I were you I would have Kos Media, LLC and Mr. Markos Moulitsas get their financial statements in undiminished order and arranged for a through review before proceeding.
32 - Adam B.
Franco, you're right that the regulations require disclaimers and disclosure by advertisers which advocate a candidate/party/PAC. All of DailyKos' advertisers do so through their ads or the sites to which they link.
In other words, if you want to see who's advertising on DailyKos, look at the ads.
33 - Franco
#32 " Adam B.
The new FEC law dose not require DK to be obligated to show it to me, or to anyone else on their website. That's not even creative spin Adam, you’re getting boring.
I see you are still dodging the issues on the facts. I’ll take that to mean your taking the 5th.