Right Wing Nut House

Poor Glenn Reynolds.

It’s tough being the #1 right of center blog. Everyone begging for links. Thousands of emails a day.

And now, this.

It’s the best send up I’ve seen since the National Lampoon did a spoof on the New York Times. Keep scrolling and clicking…you won’t be disappointed.

AND FROM THE “TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION” DEPARTMENT…

When I first saw this, I was sure it was real.

Guess again!

Now…will Paul and the Commissar cut it out so we can go on with our miserable, lonely lives?

Wars on two fronts have broken out in the blogosphere recently and neither one of them are pretty to watch standing on the sidelines.

Jeff Goldstein and Malachy Joyce have squared off partly over the Schiavo matter but mostly because Malachy used a bigoted expression when calling out Jeff on Mr. Goldstein’s portrayal of religious conservatives in the Schiavo matter. The epithet he used will not be used here. Suffice it to say it was a poor choice of words and, even if used innocently (I pointed out in comment #126 how it may have been an innocent use of an archaic expression) was insensitive and uncalled for. Mr. Joyce also should not have made the purging of his blogroll of people who did not support those of us fighting for Terri’s life a subject of a post. Perhaps a private email would have sufficed.

On the other side, well, Jeff Goldstein is Jeff Goldstein. When he calls some Christians an extremely derogatory euphemism for “Jesus Lover” he’s trying to get a rise out of people and get a little laugh at the same time. That’s what he does. That’s why his site is in the top 50 blogs. He’s a funny, talented guy who can skewer a target more effectively than a cook at a Texas barbecue.

But that comment was as out of line as Mr. Joyces. And I know it sounds crazy, but Ace is actually trying to referee this imbroglio…and making a lot of sense doing it:

Playing Ref: Jeff, I think you were way out-of-line to insult someone as a “(deleted).” You’re guilty of the same sin you’re protesting, and the “she did it first” defense won’t wash.

A quick apology is usually better than a prolonged bout of back-tracking and “explaining.” It’s quick and painless and you even gain “manful admission” points.

And this advice for Malachy:

But HundredPercenter — not looking to get de-linked or anything, but have a bit of caution about plainly Jew-baiting remarks. What does that accomplish? Nothing, nothing except animosity and hurt feelings..

Now if this weren’t enough, two of my all time favorite bloggers are going at it hammer and tongs. Paul at Wizbang and the Commissar have gotten themselves into a mess that reminds me of the way that Europe got embroiled in the First World War.

Paul has some very strong feelings about evolutionists, namely that there’s no scientific proof for it thus its adherents are as guilty of the same kind of faulty reasoning as creationists. The Commissar has passionately defended evolution. Somehow, this battle of ideas degenerated into some of the most vile name calling I’ve seen on the web. Paul deletes comments from the Commissar. The Commissar gets madder and calls Paul more vile names. It’s nuts.

The blogosphere is not a place to solve the mysteries of the universe. Even the collective wisdom of millions of people harnessed just for that purpose would fail miserably. It’s not that some things are “unknowable.” As Paul points out, the sum total of our knowledge to date is nothing compared to what it will be in say, 2000 years. Even then, I doubt whether questions about the origins of life and the spread of species on this planet will be solved.

Watching these two go at it as well as viewing the train wreck happening between Jeff and Malachy gives me a slight uneasiness in the pit of my stomach. These are people who I “visit” 2 or three times a day. In a sense, you get to know them. So it’s kind of like watching two friends go at it with you standing powerless on the sidelines unable to do anything about it.

I don’t hold out any hope for comity between any of the warring parties. A truce, maybe. And in the end, former allies and colleagues have a falling out and the blogosphere is poorer for it.

Every week for the last six months, I’ve submitted a post to the “Carnival of the Vanities,” a linkfest that features smaller to medium size bloggers and what they consider their best posts for the previous week.

This week’s COTV was hosted by Eric Berlin. Given the proximity to April Fools Day, Mr. Berlin posted guidelines for submissions requesting “humorous and offbeat” posts. It was a great idea and Eric did a great job with it, going so far as to divide the entries into groups with one entry in each group a fake! This took an inordinate amount of work and the result was both funny and well written.

But there was a catch to Mr. Berlin’s posting guidelines:

Posts about Terry Schiavo will be ignored. I don’t care if she is consumed bodily by a flash of light. You can go back to talking about her next week.

Since I had perhaps two or three rather mediocre posts that were not related to the Schiavo matter, I submitted this post where I tried to draw an historical parallel between the polarizing effect of John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859 and the Schiavo issue.

The post was not accepted. Nor did I receive any word from Mr. Berlin that my piece was disqualified. I wrote the following email to Mr. Berlin and the organizer of COTV:

I am writing to complain about Mr. Berlin’s restrictive, arbitrary, and capricious posting guidelines for this week’s COTV.

P.S. I think that Eric did a great job with this week’s COTV and I’m not advocating he be prevented from hosting in the future.

Linkfests should be fun. They’re supposed to give us smaller bloggers some exposure. But when someone unfairly excludes an entry because of a prejudice against a particular topic, what’s to prevent someone from excluding a post on the basis of politics? Or race, creed, religion or sex?

I hope the organizer of COTV takes heed of my letter and prevents any future problems with this excellent event.

Glenn Reynolds links to this excellent Patterico post about more non-reassuring assurances from proponents of regulating speech on the internet. Here’s Russ Feingold:

The FEC must tread carefully in the area of political communications on the Internet. Political news and commentary on the Internet are important, even vital, to our democracy, and becoming more so. For starters, the FEC should provide adequate protection for legitimate online journalists. Online journalists should be treated the same as other legitimate broadcast media, newspapers, etc. and, at this point, I don’t see any reason why the FEC shouldn’t include legitimate online journalists and bloggers in the “media exemption” rule.

Be worried. Be very worried. Patterico explains:

Are you comforted by this? Russ Feingold thinks you should be able to express your mind on the internet - if the government views you as a “legitimate” online journalist, that is. At least that’s Feingold’s view “at this point” - it could always change, you know.

Are you starting to get it? This is why you don’t ask the government for permission to express your views. Because if you ask, you concede that government has the right to decide what is deemed “legitimate.” And government might change its mind.

Where’s Ronald Reagan when we need him?

It’s time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, “We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.” This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power, is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

Address to the nation, October 27, 1964

At the time Reagan uttered those words liberalism was about to reach its zenith. Johnson’s crushing defeat of Goldwater ushered in a decade that saw the creation of an alphabet soup of federal agencies (including the FEC) that ended up tying the American economy and the American people in knots. To this day in many ways, we’re paying for that explosion of nannyism in a loss of freedom and control over our own lives.

Dan Lovejoy echoes Patterico in even stronger language:

While I certainly agree with the spirit of the exemption, I think it shouldn’t happen. Rather than being exempted, bloggers should continue to write in defiance of this disgusting assault on liberty. I don’t want permission from the government to speak freely. I don’t need the permission of congress to write what I want to write. Creating an exemption recognizes the validity of the law in the first place. Wrong tact - wrong policy. It is a morally reprehensible law that should be completely ignored by media of all stripes.

Grr..

It’s refreshing to find this kind of defiance. It makes you believe that the spirit of our ancestors hasn’t been completely subsumed by modern America’s penchant for looking to goverment for permission to live the life you want to. In many ways, it’s not really our fault. When government tells us what we can eat, smoke, drink, drive, and who we can hire, fire, house, and teach it proves that the people have lost control to “that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital” who not only believe they know what’s best for the rest of us, but have made abundantly clear after the results of this last election that we don’t deserve to even think for ourselves.

When our defeated opponents say that we’re too stupid to know what’s good for us, why should we surprised when these very same people want to regulate our thoughts and ideas, hence our speech?

While defiance is an excellent frame of mind, I don’t believe it’s going to help in the current situation we find ourselves in. That’s why I signed the online petition. I’m hoping that the backlash against the FEC will be so furious that the whole execrable McCain-Feingold regime will be come crashing down.

The FEC will meet on Thursday, March 24 to issue the Notice of Proposed Rule making . This meeting will be open to the public. Some from the blogging community may want to attend and try to assess the threat for themselves.

The draft is usually posted on the Monday or Tuesday before the meeting on the FEC website. Watch this site for updates.

Now I know how a 12 point buck feels on the first day of deer hunting season in Wisconsin:

We have shown at the FEC a willingness to extend the media exemption to some internet-based news services. But this media exception inquiry will go to the question of: “What is a periodical publication?” and “What is a legitimate press function?” It will also get into: “What is news?”…”What is commentary?”…”What is editorial content?”

(Remarks by FEC Chairman Scott Thomas at the Politics Online Conference at GW University)

You see, it’s all a matter of definition.

If your website is dedicated to telling everyone what you had for dinner or what cute thing your child did that day, with an occasional foray into commenting about politics, you have absolutely nothing to worry about from the FEC as far as new regulations go. And if your site talks about politics and issues but is more informational in nature concentrating on educating the public, then your site also will probably not fall under any regulations promulgated by the FEC.

But if you’re an advocate for a particular candidate, or party, or cause then watch out…the FEC has YOU in the crosshairs.

I am not a journalist. I make no pretense to being fair, or balanced, or even sane at times, hence the name of this site. I make no bones about the fact that I am a Republican and a conservative.

Iam an advocate. I am a polemicist. I’m a ranting, raving, rabid, rabble rousing raconteur of rude, ribald , rip-roaring and rage-inducing invective. My goal is to provoke. My modus operandi is satire and ridicule.

If you don’t like it, lump it.

In another age, at another time, I would probably have been a pamphleteer putting broadsides up on the walls surrounding the public square and signing my name “Publius” or “Maximus” or some such Latin psuedoniminous nonsense.

And I would have been perfectly free to do so.

Today, the public square is the internet and my broadsides take the form of postings on this website. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT PEOPLE DID 200 YEARS AGO AND WHAT I AM DOING TODAY.

Why then if we’re living under the same constitution that Tom Paine and Sam Adams lived under when they were posting their broadsides must I be concerned that the Federal Election Commission, a regulatory arm of the federal government of the United States of America, will regulate my “broadisde” and hence, my speech.

The government at the time of Tom Paine didn’t tell him how big or how small the broadside he was posting could be. They didn’t regulate what kind of ink should be used in the printing of it or what kind of paper he should use. The very thought of such regulations were beyond the imaginings of government at the time.

And now the FEC feels that the wild west of the internet must be tamed. Here’s more of Chairman Thompson’s remarks regarding “advocacy” blogs like this one:

Seriously, that starts to drift between the blogger serving as a commercial vendor, and the blogger, on the other hand, becoming a [emphasis] political committee that must register and report its receipts and disbursements for federal election activity. That sounds pretty scary, I know, but the definition of political committee is:

“…a group that raises more than $1000 dollars in contributions for the purpose of influencing federal elections…or that spends more than $1,000 dollars in expenditures for the purpose of influencing a federal election.”

It’s a pretty broad definition. Now, mercifully the Supreme Court has uh, said that a group’s “major purpose” must be influencing elections before the FEC can regulate it as a political committee. Uh, so…most bloggers, I presume, will be able to avoid political committee status. But I have to say, it’s not a particularly clean area of law, and we may have to spend some energy looking at that ugly issue.

I will also make no bones about one of my goals for starting this blog; that is, to make money. What Chairman Thomas is talking about directly affects me in that, if during a covered period I were to receive more than $1000 in political ads (or perhaps even $1000 in ads of any kind), I would fall under the reporting requirements for the purposes of FEC regulation.

Failing to report carries criminal sanctions. So unless I wanted to pay a fine I would probably have to hire a lawyer who knows something about campaign finance law to do the paperwork so that I could continue to exercise my freedom of speech.

MADNESS!

Glen Anderson, who spoke at the same Conference immediately after Chairman Thompson and who by no means could be considered an advocate is himself worried:

Scott Thomas, chairman of the FEC, spoke before me. He opened with some rather uncharitable remarks regarding fellow commissioner Brad Smith’s comments on FEC regulation of blogs, but followed up with a discussion of FEC intent that, although it was supposed to be reassuring, actually left me thinking that the FEC was thinking more seriously about regulating blogs than I had previously believed. I wasn’t reassured at all, and the complexity of the reasoning he outlined just illustrated how much discretion — and how little real guidance — the FEC has on these kinds of questions.

And one of my heroes and mentors, Pat Hynes who started the “Crushkerry” webstite (now Anklebiting Pundits) says in effect that they will have to pry his mouse from his cold, dead fingers before he acquiesces to such regulation:

Bloggers Left and Right have joined forces to prevent anything like that from happening. As I stated before, they might as well throw me in jail right now, because I will not follow the rules.

Every time anyone from the FEC or the pro-reform crowd opens their mouths to reassure bloggers, they end up making it clear that they’ve got some of us in their regulatory crosshairs.

Let’s hope they’re extremely poor shots.

NOTE: Wizbang has a video of Chairman Thompson’s remarks. Keep checking there for video and transcripts of the remarks of Glen Anderson and others at that conference.

Updates and Commentary at:

Captians Quarters
Darlene’s Place
Vodkapundit (Lashawn Barber)

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE:

The Captain links to two excellent MSM columns defending the free speech rights of bloggers. He’s quoted in World Magazine talking about the same issue I raised in my post above:

“If we had to start accounting for our time and defending ourselves every time we got accused of coordination-say by simply excerpting from a candidate’s position paper in order to make a point-we’d incur legal fees that would intimidate most people into shutting down.”

The problem as I see it is that since 95% of blogs will be exempt from any regs promulgated by the FEC, it may be difficult when push comes to shove to defeat any momentum for reform that’s building on the other side.

What we need is help in Congress. These Commissioners are creatures of politics, I believe they can be swayed if enough members of Congress speak out against any regulation of advocacy blogs. Letters and phone calls are fine. What we need are some of the big-tiime bloggers to step up and meet face to face with Members of Congress who are on our side and can do us the most good. A few floor speeches with subsequent coverage in the MSM could go a long way towards dampening any enthusiasm the FEC may have for regulating advocacy blogs.

I suppose it had to happen sooner or later. A blogger has come out in favor of new regulations to stifle political speech in the blogosphere:

Republicans, particularly conservative activists, have argued with some limited success that campaign finance laws amount to a restraint on free speech since they keep supporters from theoretically doing-or spending-as much as they’d like on behalf of their favored candidate.

Democrats are a bit less worried about regulating political speech through spending limits.

(HT: Captains Quarters)

After having established that “regulating political speech through spending” is the goal of McCain Feingold, the author of this piece, Chris Nolan, then gets to the heart of the controversy and pooh-poohs the idea of any new regulations coming from the FEC:

It’s silly to think Smith’s warnings will all come to pass and that the FEC will attempt to figure out, for instance, the actual monetary “value” to a campaign of a hyperlink from a blogger or anyone else for that matter.

And the FEC is unlikely to craft brand spanking new regulations for online advertising, completely different from those that already cover hardcopy counterparts.

But it is looking into how bloggers are compensated by campaigns as part of an exploration into how campaigns coordinate their messages with blogs or other outside organizations

Ms. Nolan, whose own political blog would be a prime candidate for regulation, doesn’t seem to mind the FEC looking over her shoulder:

Using a Web site to endorse or praise a candidate in exchange for money seems to be a violation of the spirit of the commission’s purpose.

That’s why some kind of regulation-spending limits and full, repeated disclosure are what the commission uses now-is in order

Who in their right mind would want the FEC breathing down their neck? How about this guy:

“Excellent disclosure is nice but not necessarily sufficient,” says Richard Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and himself editor of the ElectionLawBlog.

“If your goal is to prevent corruption and create equality, then disclosure is not enough.”

Please note the phrase “create equality” as if the purpose of the FEC or any federal agency is to achieve some kind of mythical, artificial parity between candidates…sort of like the NFL but with more violence done to the human spirit.

That’s not all. Ms. Nolan is developing a coalition of like minded bloggers to push such regulation:

What’s next? A loose affiliation of bloggers and others interested in online activism is hoping to present FEC Chairman Scott Thomas with a letter outlining some of the changes they think are necessary.

It’s a first step in getting the commission to amend its rules for the modern, online era and an interesting coda to an election season that saw the Internet used-voraciously by both sides-as a partisan weapon.

The coalition has managed to include former Deaniac Democrats, fiercely partisan conservatives and even a Libertarian.

“It’s tri-partisan,” quips one organizer, illustrating yet again, that politics can make strange bedfellows.

First of all, who are these “bloggers and on-line activists” who have the unmitigated gall to speak for the rest of us? I’d love to have someone like Captain Ed or the guys at Powerline find out who these schmucks are so that the rest of us can flood their mailboxes with angry letters.

To acquiesce to government regulation is one thing. To actively seek government intervention-especially in matters pertaining to free speech-is foolhardy and dangerous.

The Captain has some similar thoughts:

It’s thought-policing of the worst order, and the BCRA inevitably pushes towards that end. The FEC will have the power to determine whether or not bloggers, especially those who are politically active, engage in speech or cashless contributions. Moreover, the language in Shays-Meehan v. FEC ominously portends that the burden of proof will rest with the blogger, not with the FEC, to prove the negative: that he or she did not intend their speech to be a campaign contribution.

Why should the FEC stop at regulating bloggers who are on a campaign’s payroll? Why not regulate partisans as well? Who’s to stop them?

Certainly not Ms. Nolan and her merry band of “reformers” who evidently won’t be happy until the government publishes “goals” and “guidelines” for bloggers.

I can see it now…FEC regs taped to the space between my keyboard and monitor just to make sure I don’t step over the “FEC Line of Death” as it relates to posting about a candidate.

An exaggeration of course. But I would say to Ms. Nolan…BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!

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.

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?
(more…)

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… per the Watcher’s instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Last week, my post on Washington’s Birthday needing to be made into a national holiday again came in second place. (The second time I’ve been a bridesmaid and not the bride.) BTW, to toot my own horn a little, that same post appeared in The American Thinker.

If you’d like to join in the fun, just follow the instructions here.

There are those who believe that the current controversy over potential FEC regulation of political internet sites that’s roiling the blogosphere is nothing more than a puff of talcum powder blowing through the cable modems of overreactive pajamahadeen, a will-o-the-wisp rumpus that will disappear once cooler heads prevail and it becomes clear that the FEC is our friend and would never seek to regulate us anklebiters.

Oh yeah?

WASHINGTON, March 5 - Federal election commissioners are preparing to consider how revamped campaign finance laws apply to political activity on the Internet, including online advertising, fund-raising e-mail messages and Web logs.

But it is unclear how much appetite the F.E.C., criticized in the past by advocates for election reform as being dysfunctional and ineffective, really has for trying to govern Internet activity. In interviews on Thursday, several commissioners warned about the complexities of trying to assign a dollar value to online campaign activity and said they hoped any new regulations would not stifle personal political involvement.

(Courtesy New York Times 3/5/05)

I want you to go back and read that last sentence very carefully. Let me try and translate for you: “It’s going to be difficult to try and assign a dollar value to your advocacy, but by gum, we’re going to give it our best shot and oh, by the way, we hope that any solution we come up with won’t be too onerous.”

Every time the Commissioners open their mouths to reassure us, they give more cause for alarm. Here’s Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub telling us not to worry:

“Given the impact of the Internet,” Ms. Weintraub said, “I think we have to take a look at whether there are aspects of that that ought to be subject to the regulations. But again, I don’t want this issue to get overblown. Because I really don’t think, at the end of the day, this commission is going to do anything that affects what somebody sitting at home, on their home computer, does.”

What has me worried, what truly frightens me is that the Commissioners don’t have a clue as to what bloggers do or what a blog is! This is obvious from Commissioner Weintraub’s statement that this won’t affect what somebody “sitting at home” in front of their computer does.

Newsflash for the FEC: Any regulations that include covering any activities that limit the free flow of information from campaigns, to websites, to other web sites, to readers, will not only be “onerous” it will also restrict political speech-speech that the first amendment guarantees absolutely and without qualifications.

As I mentioned in my post from Friday just because some regulation may or may not be “constitutional” won’t stop an agency from issuing the rule in the first place. Sometimes their rationale is “If they want to fight it, they can take it to court.” Sometimes it’s just sheer bullying; the rules are promulgated because the entity being targeted can’t or won’t fight back.

In this case, it’s apparent that the Commissioners feel that McCain-Feingold gives them broad leeway to regulate political speech. This includes any kind of advocacy that can be construed as assisting a campaign in getting it’s message out. Speaking for myself, I never paid much attention to the emails coming from the Bush campaign during the last election cycle. I usually deleted it without even glancing at it. But let’s do a little “just supposin’” here:

Suppose I wanted to reproduce a blurb from that campaign release on my blog? As an advocate for the candidate, the FEC wants to “look into the possibility” that my blog would be a covered entity under McCain-Feingold-an adjunct to the Bush campaign-and subject to regulation.

Suppose I wanted to quote from the press release using a newspaper as the source? While newspapers and periodicals are specifically exempted from the law, blogs could be prevented from reproducing and/or linking to an article that contained excerpts from the press release.

Suppose (and this is my favorite “what if” scenario) a blogger wants to go to the other guys site and do a satire on some ridiculous bit of nonsense the opposing candidate came up with for that day? To do that, I’d have to reproduce some of the material on the opposition’s web site. According to the FEC, that too would be considered covered activity for pruposes of the law. In effect, I’d be considered contributing to the campaign of the oppositon!

I’ve tried to look at this situation and not be spooked. Our friends at Uncorrelated have been warning about a blogosphere overreaction since the controversy started. They point to an excellent publication by the Brookings Institution “Election Law and the Internet” as proof that there’s nothing to worry about.

I will say to my friends at Uncorrelated that I would be much more sanguine about this situation if that publication hadn’t been written by Trevor Potter. Mr. Potter, former campaign General Counsel for Senator McCain and current head of the McCain-Feingold advocacy group Campaign Legal Center, has just recently called Commissioner Brad Smith a liar in a press release for comments Mr. Smith made in an interview with C-Net. The problem, as referenced above, is that the other Commissioners, while trying to be reassuring, are in fact saying that they’ll be looking into the possibility of regulating blogs thus validating some of what Mr. Smith was saying in the interview.

This issue needs the guys at Uncorrelated and others like them to keep us from going over the precipice and into the fever swamps of conspiracy mongering and paranoia.

It also needs people like me who are going to keep a keen eye fixed squarely on everything the FEC and their advocates say and do. Because mark me, ye whalers: Once the FEC starts discussing rules to regulate blogs in public session, it won’t be a question of whether or not they will regulate blogs but rather a question of how much regulation they’ll end up stuffing down our throats.

By then, it will be too late.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE:

Michelle Malkin has been all over this issue since it broke. Today, she links to the Captain’s excellent analysis as well as several other blogs commenting on the NY Times story.