Right Wing Nut House

Ever since FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith made some remarks in a C-Net.com interview about the potential regulation of blogs by that agency, the blogosphere has been roiling with a discussion of what such regulation could mean for the future of the new media and if there’s truly anything to worry about.

Recent statements by Commissioner Ellen Weintraub as well as a joint press release by Senators McCain and Feingold have not quieted the storm. Here’s a round-up from some of the larger blogs of what the thinking is among sites most likely to be affected by any new regulation.

John Samples believes the government is about ready to come down hard on blogs. Why? John compares the blogosphere with the relatively new medium of television in the 1960’s:

In 1968, uncontrolled political spending on a new technology threatened the political status quo.

Congress acted swiftly to meet the threat. In the spring of 1969, members introduced a bill to limit campaign spending on television advertising. The bill became law in 1971 and went into effect the following year. Congress had, in the words of one member, “tamed the television monster.” Yet the “monster” in question was a threat only to those who held power.

Mike Krempasky takes apart the McCain-Feingold press release piece by piece:

The scope of what is regulated may be limited to “paid advertising” or it may not. The judge’s opinion sure doesn’t offer any such limits. After this last week, it is less likely that the regulations will be broad, but that doesn’t mean that sounding the alarm was unnecessary or unwise.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. (Actually, I did say the same thing here)

The Captain quotes from the court decision in question and looks in askance at the “Remain calm…All is well” theme of the pro-reform crowd:

While McCain and Feingold protest that their lawsuit only targets paid advertising, their action and the decision points out that they are being dishonest about it. The decision forces the FEC to regulate unpaid communications, including the Internet. How exactly do they propose on doing that? By going after those sites which repeat the candidates’ positions — or link back to them — and declaring them in-kind contributions, the only way possible to regulate it.

Now they want us to trust them not to go after bloggers with this power which they wanted to hide from people by issuing this misleading statement. Do you trust them? Have they been honest with you so far?

The Captain makes the excellent point that the decision mandates some kind of action by the FEC. While the reformers are busy pooh-poohing the idea that blogs will be regulated, the fear is that the bureaucrats will have no choice.

The guys at Powerline link to a Jim Geraghty blurb from TKS and fisk Ms. Weintraub’s screed right smartly:

Weintraub’s statement seems particularly lame. She hides behind the fact that a U.S. District Court ruled that the internet isn’t exempt from McCain-Feingold. But she doesn’t explain why the FEC didn’t appeal that ruling. Fellow commissioner Bradley Smith says that the Democrats on the commission blocked the appeal. Weintraub also notes that the FEC hasn’t drafted its rules yet. But she offers no assurances that the FEC’s thinking isn’t headed in the direction Smith described. She implies that bloggers will get to “use their electronic soapbox to voice their political views.” That’s big of the government. But our concern is not that blogs will be eliminated, just regulated.

And that’s the bureaucrat’s blind spot. They just can’t imagine someone not wanting to be regulated. Their reassurances about making sure that everyone has a say and that they’re not going to impose any regulations that haven’t been publicly commented on misses the point:

NO REGULATIONS ON BLOGGERS. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. NYET. END OF STORY!

But is all of this an overreaction? Are bloggers making way to much out of something that will never, can never come to pass? Here’s Hugh Hewitt who has remained pretty much on the sidelines in this debate for this reason:

I have been teaching the First Amendment for a decade, and it isn’t going to happen because it would be patently and obviously unconstitutional to classify the content of a political blog –which is essentially a cyber-newspaper– as within the purview of the FEC. If I direct someone to Mark Kennedy’s website and suggest a contribution to Mark Kennedy (give early and often!), there is no difference than if I had done so in a column in a newspaper or in a private letter. It is beyond the reach of the government, period.

The keyword, I would point out to our mentor and leader, is “essentially” a cyber-newspaper. I will gladly cede Hugh both his point and the fact that he’s an expert in matters pertaining to the First Amendment. But the fact is that advocacy blogs like this one do not currently have an exemption. That’s because the FEC has not yet defined what a blog is for purposes of regulation. The court, in essence, struck down the internet exemption. It’s up to the FEC to decide what internet sites (if any) would fall under the FEC’s purview. And given that most government agencies when given half a chance will seek to expand their purview, I still see cause for vigilance.

Roger Simon agrees with Hugh:

But to restrict the free speech of bloggers by loosely interpreting some already discredited legislation would be a boneheaded maneuver by these or any other pols, not to mention the bureaucrats at some government agency. They would be under endless bombardment by the blogosphere, which is filled to overflowing with lawyers. And we would win. A good portion of the mainstream media would even defend us. The attack on Dan Rather would seem paltry by comparison.

Mr. Simon seems fairly sangiune that the blogosphere can beat back any challenge to its independence. I would add that the attention paid to this issue has already given Commissioners who may have leaned towards regulating blogs second thoughts.

What next? Nothing short of holding the Commissioner’s feet to the fire to insure that their assurances aren’t just empty promises will do. In the meantime, write your elected representatives imploring them to exempt the internet permanently from FEC regulation.

And ask them to repeal McCain-Feingold now!

UPDATE:

Here’s a link to a CNN piece yesterday by Howard Kurtz on the controversy. It’s pretty straightforward reporting, but Kurtz does highlight Commissioner Brad Smith’s comments in the C-Net interview.