Two recent articles from proponents of campaign finance regulation have sought to ease the fears of bloggers that upcoming hearings will target on-line weblogs for regulation.

In an interview with C-Net.com FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub advises bloggers to “chill out:”

First of all, we’re not the speech police. We don’t tell private citizens what they can or cannot say, on the Internet or anywhere else. The FEC regulates campaign finance. There’s got to be some money involved, or it’s out of our jurisdiction.

That’s disingenuous, but I’ll bite. Some of us consider money=speech.

For example, can paid advertisements on the Web, when coordinated with a particular campaign, be considered an in-kind contribution to that campaign? Context is important, and the context here has everything to do with paid advertising, and nothing to do with individuals blogging and sending e-mails.

“Nothing to do” with bloggers? If you say so. Frankly, I don’t think you understand what blogs are. There are plenty of advocacy blogs like this one that would love to accept campaign ads. What about that context, Ellen?

Third, anyone who says they know what this proposed regulation will address must be clairvoyant, because the commissioners have yet to consider even a draft of the document that will set out the scope of any such rule.

By law, we need to decide on the scope by a public vote, and the rulemaking cannot proceed without the votes of a majority of the six commissioners. At that point, we’ll not only publicize what we’re contemplating, we’ll invite and consider public comment before we make any final decisions. That scope document (called a notice of proposed rulemaking) will be considered later this month. Until that happens, concerns about crackdowns are premature, at best.

And this is where I’m definintely not reassured. I frankly don’t care about the procedure for rulemaking. I do know that once those rules are promulgated it won’t matter much about the comment period or any other publiclicizing you do about the rules.

The whole point is to keep you from making any rules in the first place! To be told like a little child to shut up and be good because we haven’t decided what to do yet and oh, by the way, when we do decide then you can get upset is insulting and condescending.

Here’s the bottom line: The FEC hasn’t even defined what a blog is for purposes of the law. And that definition will probably hold the key to whether or not we should be worried.

Also, Michelle Malkin links to a blurb from the National Journal’s Technolgy Daily that reprints a statement from Senator Russ Feindgold’s website:

The latest misinformation from the anti-reform crowd is the suggestion that our bill will require regulation of blogs and other Internet communications. A recent federal court decision requires the Federal Election Commission to open a new rulemaking on Internet communications. The FEC will be looking at whether and how paid advertising on the Internet should be treated, i.e., should it be treated differently than paid advertising on television or radio. This is an important issue — since BCRA outlawed soft money, we need to make sure that the FEC doesn’t try once again to subvert the law by creating loopholes. So far, the FEC has not even proposed new regulations. When it does so, there will be ample opportunity for comment and debate about whatever proposal the FEC makes.

Thiswhip up baseless fears. BCRA was intended to empower ordinary citizens, and it has been successful in doing so. We will continue to fight for that goal.

There’s that “Remain calm…All is well” theme again. Why doesn’t it make me feel better when the regulators (and those who support them) constantly tell me “Don’t worry. We won’t do this behind closed doors. And you’ll even get to comment on any regulations we make…”

I’ll take Senator Feingold at his word that the “issue has nothing to with private citizens communicating on the Internet” and that “[T]here is simply no reason - none - to think that the FEC should or intends to regulate blogs or other Internet communications by private citizens.”

But I’ll keep my powder dry and my eyes open too.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE:

Wizbang blogs the Weintraub screed via Red State.org and adds some dead-on comments:

Nothing McCain, Feingold, or Weintraub said today indicates that bloggers and other online journalists will be getting a media exemption. Short of that exemption, everything else is subject to the newly undefined BCRA rules for the internet. It’s the rewriting of those rules - which have now been voided by the court - that are up for debate.

The oft derided phrase, “We’re from the government; we’re here to help” comes to mind.

With so many different takes on this issue-some saying it’s ridiculous to worry others pointing out exactly what Kevin is saying-it makes it difficult to come to any firm conclusion as to whether or not blogs are in trouble.

This much, I think we can be sure of:

1. The FEC and the reformers have very little understanding of what blogs are.

2. The FEC is in existence to regulate. While I think that Weintraub and others are sincere in their belief that they don’t want to stifle free speech, the law of unintended consequences is in full play when dealing with any federal agency. For these reasons, they simply may not be able to help themselves.