Today's House vote of the Online Freedom of Speech Act was at once bewildering and a crushing blow to supporters of the First Amendment and free speech.
First, let me say that I have never had any use for the so-called campaign finance 'reform' hogwash out there. I don't care if you are talking about Shays-Meehan or McCain-Feingold, it's all bunk that purports to try to take the effect of big money out of politics. In fact, both laws have the effect of empowering big money, as only the biggest campaigns and political parties can easily handle the management of the regulations and paperwork created by those bills and still have plenty of money left to get the message out. Many smaller campaigns often decide not to raise any money at all, so as to not be troubled by the paperwork nightmare. So, as you see, it is in fact the little guy's voice that get squashed, not big money's.
Today, the House of Representatives considered a bill, HR 1606, that would have exempted political blogs such as mine from being treated as campaign contributions. In the near future, any blog- left, right, or center; Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian- will be treated not as mere political speech, but as a campaign contribution, if it links to a candidate, or gives favorable review to that candidate.
The vote was bewildering because a majority of the House was in favor of passing the exemptions, but the bill was defeated, because infuriatingly, the majority was less than the required 2/3rds needed for passage. From a CBS News report:
Online political expression should not be exempt from campaign finance law, the House decided Wednesday as lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections.
The House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.
The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.
Fortunately, some in the House still get free speech and the First Amendment. Sadly, not enough.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said the federal government should encourage, rather than fetter, a phenomenon that was bringing more Americans into the political process."
The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the First Amendment is the Internet," he said. "The Internet is the new town square, and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there."
Article comments
1 - RJ
Great post!
What was the party breakdown of the 182 bastards who voted against HR 1606?
2 - Joanie
Was that completely insane, or what? You better believe that I'm going after "my" local elected officials for their votes. Yep, two of them want to censor bloggers. Both are afraid that the opinions of their constituents might actually make enough sense and get them booted out of office.
3 - bhw
In the near future, any blog- left, right, or center; Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian- will be treated not as mere political speech, but as a campaign contribution, if it links to a candidate, or gives favorable review to that candidate.
So I can't say "Vote for DumbassX" on my blog without that being considered a campaign contribution? WTF?
Posting a link on your blog may be a crime.
Well, is it a crime when you post it or only if you don't report it in some way? What exactly is being restricted and/or regulated?
In America!
There's a lot of stuff I can't do in America that just shouldn't be illegal. But that bit in the first amendment about "Congress shall make now law ... abridging the freedom of speech" was referring especially to political speech, so any regulation of what I say and when I say it is outrageous, links or no links.
BTW, I was one of the few liberals out there who disagreed with the McCain-Feingold law. Understandable that we want to clean up the elections, but not that we want to restrict political speech.
4 - RJ
I'll answer my own question:
Supporters of free speech on the Internet - 179 Repubs, 46 Dems.
Opponents of free speech on the Internet - 143 Dems, 38 Repubs, 1 Independent (pinko commie socialist).
Cowards who refused to vote - 13 Repubs, 13 Dems.
5 - Dave Nalle
So if in the next election I post links to both the McCain campaign sight and the Hillary Clinton campaign site, does that mean I'm okay because I've met the criteria for 'equal time'?
Dave
6 - Mike Kole
Had the 26 absentees/cowards voted in favor of free speech, the 2/3rds majority needed would have been secured. These 26 should be held up to the same scrutiny as those who voted 'nay'.
bhw- Thanks for your take on campaign finance/free speech. Please do what you can to work on your fellow liberals so that they can see the connection.
I was a Democrat as a younger man. Free speech was my #1 issue. I began drifting from the left when the Dems began to drift from unwavering First Amendment support.
7 - Mike Kole
Dave: Nope.
Just as Archer-Daniels-Midland makes direct campaign contributions to both Ds & Rs, linkage to all parties is seen in the same way. Fill out the forms.
8 - RJ
"Had the 26 absentees/cowards voted in favor of free speech, the 2/3rds majority needed would have been secured."
Actually, in order to have a 2/3rds majority in the HoR, you need 291 votes. 225 + 26 = 251. That's 40 short.
9 - Dave Nalle
The breakdown of the votes is pretty incontrovertible. The democrats really didn't want this to pass.
The good news is that it can be resubmitted in the next session as a regular floor bill and will only need a regular majority to pass.
Dave
10 - Preston Parkhurst
"They hate us for our freedoms"
11 - Mike Kole
OK, so my math was off. The sub-point is that I expect elected officials to show up for their votes.
12 - Temple Stark
Well laid out Mike. Made me think of the subject in a different way.
Having been the "victim" (I use the term advisedly) of a person who blogged on another site of mine about North Dakota candidates, who was paid by a campaign to do so, I see where some restriction is required. See my thoughts on the subject here and particularly here.
Are you saying sites like DailyKos.com or Redstate.org couldn't actively be recruited to campaign for Candidates X and Y - and be paid. I think a closer look at the communications act in question here and it's provisions would uncover a "monetary interest" standard, but I have not looked lately so cannot be sure.
And it is correct that the interpretation you hold could be construed, but I don't think that would be the reality because at the moment it does not benefit either side more than the other to do so. But the possiblity is indeed still out there, however remote.
13 - Al Barger
Sure Temple, DailyKos et al could be actively recruited and paid to campaign for Candidate X. There seems to have been some of that in 2004. But so what?
That's paying someone surreptitiously, rather than directly and above board as advertising. It's dishonest maybe, but that's life.
The real way to deal with such things is not to send in cops to destroy EVERYONE'S freedom, but to simply expose when someone's doing such things, and discredit them by publicity. Note the HUGE hit in credibility Armstrong Williams took when it was found that W had him on the payroll.
I was not particularly bothered by Mike's concerns over Blogcritics linkage to my campaign last year. It just gets my pirate blood up. Breakin' the law, breakin' the law!
He was absolutely right, though. CONSIDER THIS little micro-example of the way campaign finance laws actually work.
14 - DrPat
I wonder how Chris Muir fits into this? (He touts his payment by www.gop.org in a recent Day by Day post.) He's a blogger AND a politically-leaning cartoonist.
So his speech would be curtailed if he mentions a candidate?
Maybe Scott Butki has the right idea, and what all we bloggers should do is write letters to editors, congresscritters, and media moduls, then post THOSE on our political blogs.
At least it would make the connection between free speech and politicking obvious to the blindest campaign-reform nitwit.
15 - Al Barger
Chris Muir is totally cool. In the first place, it does not appear that he's being paid to say a particular thing, to support some or other administration line. It seems the RNC is simply paying licensing to display his strip.
But even if they were paying him to make represent specific positions, it would be above board. Parties have spokesmen on their payroll at all times, and that's considered totally cool. It's simply PR.
Muir's practicing full disclosure, and you can feel free to take that into account if you think this changes what he says. That's very different from Armstrong Williams taking money on the side to push an administration line.
16 - Mike Kole
Looking at it mechanically, speech won't be curtailed, per se. It will just become more expensive or difficult. If your linkage is construed as a campaign contribution, you'll have to file papers and declare the amount such linkage is valued at. Who knows how that is determined. Those who don't want to deal with the hassle will just stop posting links.
Now, I can tell you who doesn't mind the hassle: the major political parties, lobbyists, PACs, wealthy benefactors... in sum, anyone big enough, well-heeled enough to hire someone to manage the paperwork. This could include Kos or Redstate.
Again- the stated intention of the campaign finance 'reform' laws was to take money out of the equation. What it did, however, was make money a factor like never before.
The laws are crazy. Consider this:
The Libertarian Party of Indiana made a governing decision last year to not be directly associated with any candidates for Federal office, including Al Barger, who was running for US Senate. The reason was that simply printing Al's name on one of the state party's brochures triggered BCRA, requiring the organization to file a slew of Federal papers showing the value of the organizations consideration. The LPIN Central Committee decided that it wasn't worth the hassle, since it focused more on local races as a matter of strategy anyway.
What kind of goofed-up system do we have when a political party decides its' best interest is to separate itself from its own candidates? That's what BCRA caused.
17 - Dave Nalle
>>Looking at it mechanically, speech won't be curtailed, per se. It will just become more expensive or difficult. If your linkage is construed as a campaign contribution, you'll have to file papers and declare the amount such linkage is valued at. Who knows how that is determined. Those who don't want to deal with the hassle will just stop posting links.<<
Mike, that's what we call a 'chilling effect', and it's functionally equivalent to restricting free speech. Speech you have to pay for isn't free.
And yes, the campaign finance reforms are totally fucked up. The right way to reform them is to get rid of every damned restriction from the ground up.
Dave