Garance is a stupid snizatch.

But, of course, large corporations with defense and oil interests can keep funneling donations to politicians that hand them contracts worth billions of dollars in taxpayer money.  And they want to regulate bloggers?   Fuck off.

"Because the internet is magic?"

The people deserve to know who influences their elections and how.  Why shouldn't that rationale apply to the internet as it would any other medium?  Because the internet is magic?

And which is "elitist": the group who believes that the people deserve to know, or the group who doesn't?

Otherwise, it's nice to know that RedState, at least, has managed to survive despite those terrible, terrible regulations it must suffer under as a 527.

In the same article, she also says that 1606 would "would fail to close the online loophole that currently leaves soft-money funded partisan political activities less regulated online than off."

I thought it was funny that she'd use the word loophole.  Internet campaigning/activism is a new realm.  It's not like they can use it to buy TV or radio spots.  I just don't see what advantage spending bajillions of dollars on the internet is going to do for a candidate.  What's he gonna do, buy all the bloggers new cars to shill for him?

I realize that someday, somebody's probably going to figure out how to do insidious things with money and the internet, but why not wait and see what the problem will be before trying to implement a solution?  The technology is gonna change anyway, so overreacting now most likely won't help matters.

There isn't a single author there who's any better than a minor league Heather. Throw 'em in the same trash heap as TNR and Slate.

The difference between Daily Kos and a PAC or 527 is that the money that comes in to Daily Kos goes to manage the site and to reporting and opinion pieces.

The money that comes in to a PAC or 527 may be used for opinion pieces, but is primarily used for issue advocacy (mailings, advertisements, print materials) and contributing to candidates.

The money Kos "raises" for candidates never touches his hands, and the FEC has no problem with bundling like that.  If they regulate Kos's bundling, they will have to regulate EVERYONE's bundling, including Bush's Pioneers and Rangers.

The reason the media get it wrong is that they don't appreciate the distinction between "in-kind contribution", and "independent expenditure."  An in-kind contribution is made, for example, if you provide free advertising, meaning you post someone's campaign literature in a spot where you would otherwise post advertising.  A billboard, same thing.  To be Constitutional, the Congress and the FEC had to carve out a large area of exemption for 1st amendment political speech -- the most highly protected form of speech.  Since bloggers do not charge anyone to write what they write, (or read what the write for that matter) and since provision of your own voluntary service (rather than materials or access) cannot be regulated without impinging on speech, I don't see how you stop people from talking, about whatever.

The money raising thing is speech, plain and simple.  It's different than the money spending thing, and that's where I'd focus the line drawing.  A PAC controls how money is spent.  First they collect it; then they distribute it.  Until and unless Markos starts collecting and distributing, he's not a PAC.  Until and unless he starts collecting money and airing issue ads, he's not a 527.  Until and unless he starts collecting money and lobbying, he's not a 501(c)(4).  Telling his readers to send cash to his favorite campaigns is garden variety free speech.

Pretty much anything you can pick up the phone and do yourself is garden variety free speech.

I think there are already examples of why we should be looking for sensible ways to apply BCRA to internet communications (by "sensible" I mean ways that don't dampen grassroots participation).  The Thune campaign comes to mind - where they paid $35k to a couple of South Dakota bloggers to promote the campaign.  Now, obviously, campaign expenditures have to be reported by the campaign and I presume that this is how the Thune situation came to light.  But I think this is a good indication that campaigns are increasingly aware of the internet as an important medium in influencing the public debate, and that they are likely to continue to look for ways to push the on-line envelope.  The internet is only going to become more important as technology advances.  It makes sense to me to put regulations in place to prevent abuses from happening, provided this can be done is ways that protect the first amendment rights of grassroots (i.e. non-campaign affiliated) participation.

I have to say that, like Drew above, I'm very skeptical about what you call your "conceptual overlay," which I understand to be that the internet is different from other media because one's ability to participate does not rise or fall in accordance with the amount of money she has.  That's true only in the sense that anyone can put up a free post on blogger that will be read by approximately nobody.  But it strikes me as fairly ludicrous to assert that a wealthy individual (or corporation) does not have a huge advantage when it comes to having an actual influence on public debate.  Give me a couple hundred grand for a web design team, an advertising team to make internet Swift Boat commercials, bandwith, and Google ads to promote my site, and I'll build you one hell of an successful website.  Here's an analogy: Nobody thinks that just because public access channels exist, television is a level playing field.  Why is the internet so different?

I've tried to be open-minded about all of this, but the ridiculous scare tactics of the anti-regulation crowd have been pretty alienating.  I mean, at Red State I've read that "commenting at this blog or Daily Kos would subject you to FEC Reporting under HR 4900," which is patently absurd.  The FEC is going to regulate my internet comments.  Give me a break.  Even if they were so inclined, how in the hell would the FEC accomplish this?  And even if it was  possible to do - which it's not - how would any such regulation come close to being constitutional?  These are scare tactics, and they're laughable.

Finally, I'm asked to believe that folks like Nancy Pelosi and Russ Feingold are just anti-free speech and/or trying to maintain the advantages of incumbency, while the likes of Denny Hastert and Bill Frist are just looking out for the little man.  Puh-lease.

Of course there a plenty of bloggers who started from obscurity and now have huge readerships.  This says virtually nothing about whether or not the internet as a medium is less susceptible to corruption.

Unless I'm reading you wrong, you seem to be arguing that because BCRA has not - in four years - ended corruption, we should abandon it altogether.  I can't agree.  To the extent that there are still abuses, they should be addressed.  But BCRA has made a difference.

The problem I have with equating money to speech is that only the wealthy get to speak.  That's not my understanding of the First Amendment, and it's not what I want to see happen to the internet.

Whether or not the Internet gets around the anti-bundling rules in McCain-Feingold.  If corporations and influence peddlers realize they can get around these regulations via the net, they will do it at some point.  They can be slow to find loopholes - see 527s- but once they figure them out lookout.  It is my understanding that HR 1606 addresses that legitimate problem without the restrictions in other bills.

The point of regulating blogs, of course, is to limit dissent and to limit public participation in the political process. The same was true of that unconstitutional campaign finance law. I guess the 95+ % re-election rate of Congress just isn't yet competitive with Saddam's re-election rates over the years...