BLOGOSPHERE… WE HAVE A PROBLEM
If this comes to pass, it could prove to be extremely troubling:
Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.
In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign’s Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate’s press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.
Smith is a Federal Elections Committee member. His interview at C-Net News.Com should be a wakeup call to all of us who blog on politics in the United States.
Here’s the deal. In 2002 the FEC exempted the internet from McCain-Feingold, the campaign finance reform bill, by a 4-2 vote. Then, last fall a District Court overturned that decision saying “The commission’s exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines” the intent of McCain-Feingold.
Smith and the other two Republican commissioners wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn’t get the three Democrats to go along with them, what Smith describes as a “bizarre” regulatory process now is under way.
What kind of regulations?
A link to a candidates website could be considered a political contribution. That’s right. The Federal Election Commission is trying to determine the best way to quantify the monetary value of a link for purposes of determining how much of a contribution should be charged against a blogger’s $2000 personal campaign contribution limit.
Can you say nightmare?
It may become illegal to link back to a candidate’s web site unless it’s counted as a campaign contribution.
What happens if, like I did on numerous occassions, you link back to the other guy’s site to point out some inconsistency or, as in the case of John Kerry, some hilarious bit of nonsense?
So far, our government is silent on whether or not it will be illegal to try and make people laugh.
Other regulations involving email lists and non-blog news sites are also in the offing. In effect, if you have a mailing list of people who get an update from your blog, the cost of maintaining that list and sending the emails could be counted as campaign contributions if you’re promoting a candidate by linking to his website or even quote from a press release!
This is the madness spawned by McCain-Feingold. It’s what happens when the government attempts to regulate something that’s protected by the Constitution. In order to comply with the Constitution, all sorts of incredibly stupid and illogical rules have to be promulgated which leave open loopholes you can drive a semi through.
What are the chances of these regulations coming to pass? Pretty good if you believe Commissioner Smith. Other’s aren’t so sure. From Rexblog:
If the columnist or anyone at CNET or anyone who is going to be screaming about this today can produce one member of Congress who will go on record supporting any such measure, I will head to the streets along with anyone else who wants to protest this “coming crackdown.”
And Professor Bainbridge gives us this gem:
Yet, the oddity of campaign finance regulation is that we have ended up in a place in which pornographers apparently have greater constitutional protection than political bloggers. It’s like we live in the First Amendment’s Bizzaro World.
Yup.
This is only the beginning of Internet regulation. We all know that politicians have been greedily eyeing on-line commerce for its potential to yield billions of dollars in tax revenue. And somebody, somewhere, sometime, is going to start attacking the massive internet porn industry.
Why should we bloggers be any different?
Cross-posted at Blogger News Network
UPDATE
Michelle Malkin has a good round-up of reaction.
Reader Gary wonders if this could backfire:
Or it might be wedge that begins the reverse some of the ridiculous campaign finance laws. The internet is too dynamic to regulate this way.
Spot on.
UPDATE II
From the comments, there seems to be some skepticism as to whether or not this could ever happen.
From Len: This is all just ridiculous grandstanding. Does anybody really think that the U.S. government is capable of regulating or controlling the internet in any way?
And from Jeremy: This is no more likely to happen than a general internet tax, or an e-mail tax to subsidize USPS. It won’t be happening any time soon.
I agree the chances of any kind of substantive regulation is remote but only because of the kind of pressure you’re seeing from bloggers.
I wonder what would happen if nobody said anything?