I figure that about 15% of what he says is anti-Bush.  

Maybe the city should start charging him for ranting and raving?  That seems consistent with what the FEC is saying, because, face it, there's quite a bit of similarity, except that maybe some of us smell better and don't have vitamin B1 deficiencies.

I'm curious how anyone can determine that blogs are any different than the 'public square' -- what am I missing?

How would they place a value on the benefit to the candidate? Would candidate A get "credit" for bad endorsements or if the "endorsement" actually worked against them?

Hey, I've got an idea! I think I'll set up a site to endorse Sen. Santorum. I could explain all of the reasons I support his re-election and he would be penalized for my "support", which I guarantee would be very sincere and hearfelt. The FEC and Santorum couldn't blame me if I accidently infuriated several million religious conservatives. As long as I endorse Santorum, the FEC would be obligated to penalize him.

Nah. I don't see a problem with this at all.

For gawdsake...how the hell would this truly be tracked, quantified and proven in a court of law?  Do they really understand how the internets and blogging works?  I certainly don't want my already mispent tax dollars being further diverted to enforce such another such obviously stupid wild goose chase.

Will campaign finance law work to level the playing field, or will it stifle political discussion?

There are structural problems at the core, which result in attempts at reform which limit participation, rather than insure that wealth is not used to gain undue influence over our electoral process.

With the influence of blogs and internet campaigning growing so quickly, it is unrealistic to expect that this sphere will continue to be unregulated, when it proclaims that ultimately it will have as much influence on voters as an expensive direct mail campaign, or other more traditional campaign medium.

I don't believe a media exemption is a good route either. Do we want blogs and email lists and websites to be required, as tv, print, and radio journalism is, to provide equal time to all candidates?

MyDD avoids campaign finance limitations, only to discover it must present a pro-GOP view for every pro-DEM view it publishes.

Campaign finance reform needs to be restructered to limit contributions from individuals and organizations, focusing on the total amount individuals donate in total, to all outlets.

In other words, if the limit is $2000, I can only contribute my $2000 once; I cannot contribute $2000 to a pac, $2000 to a party committee, $2000 to a candidate, $2000 to another 527, etc., etc.

Were we to focus our regulatory efforts here, all mediums would be free to participate as much as they like, free speach would be protected, and many venues for the exchange of opinions would be promoted, rather than stifled.

As it is now, the FEC has the cart in front of the horse. They must constantly look for cracks in the dam wall, to insure that someone like George Soros, to use an example on our side, isn't able to get around current limitations by throwing a few million dollars behind a website that accomplishes the same amount of influence he could have if he were able to give an unlimited amount to the candidate.

Any judges who believe MONEY equals free speech but FREE SPEECH equals money should head for re-education, starting at Sesame Street.  In another 20 years maybe they could be allowed back on the bench.

The FEC represents the height of bipartisan hackery.  In this case, my guess is that the GOP members' desire to appeal is based on their general hostility to all campaign finance regulations, while the Dems' refusal to appeal reflects their even deeper commitment to a political status quo that's threatened by blogs.

I am a firm believer in CFR (though in my view, all campaigns should be publicly financed). But whatever system we adopt needs to be overseen by a more credible body than the FEC.  Such a body needs to be NON-partisan, not BI-partisan.

Think of how absurdly un-enforceable the law
actually is. For one thing, I am about
11 seconds away from an indian telnet account.
So I go to hyderabad, which has a hosting service
in malaysia. I describe the post to a friend
of mine who writes the pages out,and we post
the html and ASPX code to a server in
malaysia.

Great. Now the democratic party has to
locate me, find out its my words -
I post under a moniker of course.

Then they have to track down the
server. They have to serve an international
warrant, that takes 3 months.

Bottom line. by the time the FEC would enforce
anything, they've already gone outside
of every election.

No, the correct stance to this is to
oppose it if only for pragmatic
reasons...

blogosphere is the only news outlet
left, folks and if you think the fascists
want to shut it down you're right but
its also your duty to keep it going.

mp3 downloads, anyone?

Check this out -they are planning to release
a story saying employee blogging
is a threat to Corporate Security.

Excerpt:

By John K. Waters
Does employee blogging activity pose a threat to enterprise security? According to Alyn Hockey, director of research at Clearswift, it does, and on two fronts.

"Blogging has definitely emerged as a potential security threat," Hockey says. "Especially when practiced by disgruntled or malicious employees. But simple carelessness is also a factor. They don't necessarily have to have bad intentions to do some damage to a company's brand and reputation."

Redwood City, CA-based Clearswift is best-known for its MIMEsweeper content security software for e-mail and the Web.

Beyond the obvious productivity drain from employees' posting to personal Weblogs on company time, blogging provides an opportunity for deliberate or accidental breaches of confidentiality.

(best if read to the tune of Elektrobank by
the chemical brothers..)