MyDD :: Unholy alliance

Unholy alliance

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:36:16 AM EST

Those of you with a sense of irony will appreciate this, other may feel a bit of the comedic; but for the rest, brace for the tragic. A couple of days ago, I called out for a Internet Exemption (of CFR) law passed by Congress. Turns out, I already have an ally.

Hit it maestro:

AN AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE DELAY OF TEXAS, OR A DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR 10 MINUTES

Insert after title XV the following new title (and redesignate the succeeding provisions and conform the table of contents accordingly):

TITLE XVI--EXEMPTION OF INTERNET ACTIVITIES FROM REGULATION

SEC. 1601. EXEMPTION OF INTERNET ACTIVITIES FROM REGULATION UNDER FECA.

Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections 101, 401, 507, 510, 515, 1001, and 1101, is further amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`EXEMPTION OF INTERNET ACTIVITIES

`SEC. 330. (a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the limitations, prohibitions, or reporting requirements of this Act shall apply to any activity carried out through the use of the Internet or to any information disseminated through the Internet.

`(b) EXCEPTION- Subsection (a) shall not apply to the solicitation or receipt of contributions.

`(c) INTERNET DEFINED- The term `Internet' means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet-switched data networks.'.

This IE amendment by DeLay failed 160-268, but that was largely due to it's being offered up as one of many 'poison pill' amendments (think (b) in practice) designed to defeat the Shays-Meheen CFR bill. I think getting 55 votes to flip on this is doable, especially if the bill contained only (a) & (c) language, as it's (b) that's problematic.

So, here we are, all we need now is for a Republican and Democrat in the House, and in the Senate, to introduce an bill -without (b)- like the above, and we'll lobby for it's passage. And I don't really care who it is either as this isn't bipartisan-- it's non-partisan. So if repub bloggers can get a Senator, and DeLay is still game, whatever, that'll work... we just need to find a couple of Democrats that want to be the leader of the free world on the internet.

Unlike DeLay's proposed exemption, this isn't about totally unregulating the internet, as contributions raised through the internet will continue to be regulated, as will expenditures for internet-based activities by candidates. Both of those are already ongoing, and enforced by the FEC on campaigns and candidates in their reporting. Anything further is a burden to liberty.

Tags: Money (all tags)

Permalink :: 20 Comments :: Post a Comment

Also read (none / 0)

Square Pegs & Round Holes: Applying Campaign Finance Law to the Internet Risks To Free Expression & Democratic Values (pdf), by the CTD.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:38:53 AM EST

My Concern (none / 0)

Is that the exception may prove large enough to obliterate the ban on direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. If I'm reading this right, this would allow Wal*Mart to promote the President's campaign on every page of its website, without even having to report it to the FEC.

Here's the roll call on the amendment.

by Adam B on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:01:40 AM EST

Re: My Concern (3.00 / 1)

Yea, and why is that a big deal? Do you think Walmart wants to tell 48% of the people that they don't agree with their political views? And if they do, so what, why is regulation, instead of civic action and boycott, the answer?

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:07:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Concern (none / 0)

Yes, I do think they want to influence the process. Wal*Mart's corporate PAC gave $2.7M to candidates last year, almost all to Republicans. You think that -- especially with the data they have on online shoppers -- they wouldn't love to have on their pages "Want to keep our prices low? Be sure to support Rep [X] for reelection. He's a friend of yours -- and ours."

Especially in an industry where all the companies are aligned politically the same way (alcohol, tobacco, or Big Pharma, say), there's no possibility of boycott or civil action.

Yours is an argument that would extend against all restraint on contributions to campaigns, isn't it?

by Adam B on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:27:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Concern (none / 0)

No, it wouldn't extend, the internet is a whole different world than any of the other 8 communication vehicles that are mentioned; the biggest being, a political website/video by Joe Schmoe could/would have more influence that Wallmart's effort.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:25:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Concern (none / 0)

What if Wal*Mart's servers hosted all of the GeorgeWBush.com content on behalf of the campaign, and freed up campaign money to be spent on non-internet communications?

by Adam B on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:34:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Concern (none / 0)

That's an expenditure, one that's already required by the FEC to be reported, so Bush would have to pay Wallmart for it, and mk't value, not to exceed an inkind contribution of $2K.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:56:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Concern (none / 0)

Except Wal*Mart itself cannot spend one dime of corporate funds on behalf of a campaign under current law. It has to be through its PAC. This loophole, as drafted, if I read it correctly, would eviscerate that restriction.

by Adam B on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:43:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heck, even a broken clock is right twice a day! (none / 0)

:)

by Geotpf on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:05:51 AM EST

So Bloggers are a Special Interest Now? (none / 0)

I agree that political expression online is a protected right, but we have to remember why we have campaign finance laws in the first place - to shine light on who is paying for what and how much are they paying.

I ran into a lot of the same issues with my PAC in 1999 when I got an FEC Advisory Opinion (AO1999-37) on some Flash ads and reporting requirements on forwarded materials:

http://ao.nictusa.com/ao/no/990037.html

I don't think the current soft-money ban or stopping issue ads was a good thing, as it stifles speech. As long as there is good reporting on who paid for what then let the public decide if the source is credible.

Most bloggers are individuals who are committed to what they write about (i.e. progressive politics) and sometimes work together as a team of individuals for a desired political outcome. It's safe to say most don't spend a lot of money on their blogs (although there are some exceptions).

There are reasons for what is being considered. What if, for example, Kos or Jerome Armstrong who lead the charge for dozens of candidates (and raised globs of cash for them) was meeting someone from the AFL-CIO or some corporation that wanted to get rid of Bush every few months in a Washington, DC Starbucks and was given a stack of unmarked bills to run their sites?? That would be corporate or labor money being spent on prohibited activities. That is exactly the kind of thing the FEC needs to make sure doesn't happen.

I don't envy the role the courts and Congress have put the FEC in, but they have to draw a line on what is protected speech and what is regulated as political communications. I wish them luck...

by PanettaMike on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:57:33 AM EST

We limit government not fundamental rights (none / 0)

Campaign finance reform must be and must be sold as a limitation on the actions of candidates and their organizations, not anyone else. For instance, we cannot tell Joe Six-Pack or Joe Millionaire not to spend his money on speech. But we can tell candidates and their organizations that they cannot accept such money if it is offered.

The problem isn't the offering of assistance by citizens, it the acceptence of the money by the candidates and their organizations.

Why do we limit candidates? I think of it as preparing them for the imminent shift in their status from citizen to government. They need to get used to being the servant, not the master.

The citizens must always humble the government and remind it who is the soveriegn, even (and this is where many of you may disagree) the citizens must humble the government EVEN WHEN it is doing a good job.

Our inheretence of liberty is not the natural order. The natural order is social darwinism and oppression. Like any unnatural thing, our liberty requires constant inputs of energy to be sustained. There are a million ways to destroy what we have and few ways to preserve it; thus we can't be shy about the minutiae.

by Paul Goodman on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:04:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess I'm missing something... (none / 0)

Explain the objectionable loophole in the Delay amendment.

As I see it, it creates an exemption from regulation for internet political activity. Paragraph "b" says that that exemption does NOT apply to solicitation or receipt of contributions. So the internet can be used for political speech, but it is still subject to regulation when used as a fund raising tool.

What am I reading wrong?

by JPhurst on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:09:32 PM EST

Re: I guess I'm missing something... (none / 0)

It would apply equally to individual, corporate and PAC-related activities online. Wal*Mart, which cannot spend one dime on federal candidates, could now tailor its website to tell you which local candidates you ought to support as "friends of Wal*Mart" on every page of its site.

by Adam B on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:14:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess I'm missing something... (none / 0)

I'm reading it the same way you are. Sub-section (b) of the DeLay Amendment is the only thing that stops it from "totally unregulating the internet." The bill says the internet is exempt from BCRA regulation, except as to receipt or solicitation of contributions.

I'd be very leery of supporting any bill along these lines, and the fact that it's a DeLay Amendment should make us that much more cautious before jumping on board.

by few on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:28:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess I'm missing something... (none / 0)

I could be reading it wrong, but why then would it have been a poison pill?

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Any activity ... through the use of" (none / 0)

"...to any activity carried out through the use of the Internet..."

Could a party or candidate set up, coordinate and pay for an entire GOTV effort through an Internet site unregulated by CFR? Could the Internet entity purchase advertising unregulated by CFR? A huge enterprise could by set up using Web sites, email and electronic fund transfers over the Internet. "Any activity" is pretty broad; "Through the use of" is pretty vague.

by Steve in Sacto on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:25:10 PM EST

This Bill Is Aimed At the Heart of MyDD (none / 0)

Subsection (b) is dangerous. It appears designed to allow regulation of fundraising ads on blogs--a place where we have a great advantage. Why would a link to a contribute page not be considered funding related? I think this bill opens the door to regulating advertising on political blogs.

by Robwaldeck on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:15:38 PM EST

Re: This Bill Is Aimed At the Heart of MyDD (none / 0)

I think all it means is that the FECA contribution limits which otherwise apply would remain applicable to internet-based donations. In other words, just because we're exempting other activities from regulation doesn't mean that Joe Schmo can now donate $100,000 to Federal Candidate X.

by Adam B on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:45:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Bill Is Aimed At the Heart of MyDD (none / 0)

I'm confused. You say (b) is dangerous because it would lead to regulation of advertising on blogs. But what kind of regulation could there be? Advertising on whatever medium is simply a campaign expense. If John Kerry bought an ad on Mydd that linked to his contribution site, it seems clear to me that Mydd has not contributed anything of value to the Kerry campaign. Sure, there are bandwith (etc.) costs involved, but at least in theory those costs are borne by the campaign that pays to run the ad. Mydd has not made a contribution any more than your local CBS affilliate makes a contribution when it runs a 30-second spot. Of course, the ads would have to say who paid for them, but that's no biggie.

If we're talking about an unpaid link to a campaign contribution page, then provided there has not been coordination we're talking about pure political speech. As you've said elsewhere, I still don't see how any regulation of that could be constitutional.

Am I missing something?

by few on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:45:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Still thinking this through (none / 0)

And if a third-party bought an ad on Mydd linking to the Kerry donation page, then it seems to me that either this is an independent expenditure, which that third-party would have to report if it was greater than $250, or, if it is coordinated, then it counts toward that party's $2000 limit as an in-kind contribution. I don't remember a lot of these types of ads being run in the 2004 cycle, though.

None of this seems particularly onerous to me.

by few on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.