Comments on: IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF THE FEC

By: Bird's Eye View

Bird's Eye View — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:02:39 +0000

Carnival of the Vanities #130
Welcome to the weekly meeting of the Blogosphere Boys Club. What’s that? you didn’t know this was a men’s club? Don’t you read Newsweek? Lot’s of noise amongst the blogs about this “guys only” perception. I don’t really think the

By: Bird's Eye View

Bird's Eye View — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:44:43 +0000

By: Watcher of Weasels

Watcher of Weasels — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:51:59 +0000

Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:52:26 +0000

I absolutely agree. There is nothing fundamentally different between political blogging and Tom Paine and like-minded patriots churned out via the printing press in the barn in the lead up to and thru the Revolutionary War. No difference at all.

That said… I can see a case being made for the FEC having some say in what front blogs do. Front blogs being a weblog that is actually just a cover or a front for an organized political party and/or candidate which is otherwise already under the FEC’s jurisdiction. But, leave us citizen bloggers the hell alone! We should be able to advocate for whomever or whatever we wish.

By: Kender

Kender — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:51:03 +0000

One: If someone wanted to stop or hinder a blogger that was against their candidate of choice, would a donation of 1000 dollars cause that to happen?

Two: Doesn’t it seem stupid that bloggers in other countries that have no fear of FEC regulations would have more right to speak about our elections than we do?

Three: Is this a reflection of the power bloggers truly wield?

Four: If bloggers do hold this kind of sway, will candidates use bloggers to their advantage in future elections? and if so, will that involve paying bloggers?

I say if I blog for free it is free speech. I also say that if somone blogs for money that is still free speech, unless they are directly taking money from a candidate to promote that candidate. Example, person A blogs for cash, maybe through ad revenue. That is free speech. It is not the candidates that are paying the blogger.

Lastly, can a case be made against Dan Rather for breaking campaign contribution laws during the last election?