Daily Kos

View Story | 54 comments

  •  thoughts, comments, recs, questions (4.00 / 4)

    I know this is a very busy week, with the nuclear option and other matters consuming us.  But the long-term implications of the proposed regulations are huge, and it's crucial that we do what we can to educate the FEC into getting it right.

    Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

    by Adam B on Mon May 16, 2005 at 08:35:19 AM PDT

    •  Thank you for (none / 0)

      keeping us updated on this important topic.  It isn't as obviously exciting as Sen.Byrd pulling out his pocket-sized Constitution, but we (as a community) do need to stay involved and informed.

      by kdrivel on Mon May 16, 2005 at 09:12:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm doing what I can (none / 1)

        It's hard to make this sound simple.  Basically, you've got a regulatory regime that's based on notions of scarcity of bandwidth and high costs of entry in other media (tv, radio, print) that they're trying to mold around this space, where all speakers are more-or-less equal and an infinite number of sites can bloom.

        Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

        by Adam B on Mon May 16, 2005 at 09:16:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  preserving a democratic medium (none / 0)

          This is precisely why I think no regulation at all is the best solution. All other media structurally favor wealthy elites. The internet provides the only relatively level playing field. It is absolutely crucial that we don't fuck this up. No regulation at all may not be the optimum solution, but it is the safest. I simply do not trust the government to get involved in a way that actually enhances rather than hinders the democratic nature of the internet. That's why I favor the Reid bill. Thanks for the link below. I intend to contact my Congressman, John Lewis, and urge him to support the corresponding House bill. Thanks for all your hard work on this most important of issues.

          Chomsky Fever! John McCain sucks.

          by miasmo on Tue May 17, 2005 at 10:56:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  my email to FEC (none / 0)

          I urge you not to regulate political speech on the internet. Over the last three years I have come to rely substantially on the internet for news and political analysis. The internet contains an infinite diversity of information and opinion from every color of the political spectrum and every degree of credibility and quality from the ranting of crazy people to analysis and reporting that have proven to be more accurate than the mainstream broadcast media. I sort through all of this using my own intelligence and values. If a wealthy individual or corporation finances a web site to help or hurt a political candidate, I am smart enough to evaluate this for myself. There is never a shortage of contrary opinions and information readily available over the internet with which to weigh any issue. This contrasts with broadcast media. There are only three cable news outlets and three broadcast news programs, and these are usually focusing on the same trite stories such as the runaway bride. Political advertisements on television exist in a relative vacuum of relevant information with which to evaluate their content. FEC regulations are absolutely necessary for the wealth dominated medium of television. The same rationale simply doesn't apply to the internet.

          Please do not hinder free speech on the internet. It is the only democratic medium we have, providing a relatively level playing field to all voices regardless of wealth. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

          Chomsky Fever! John McCain sucks.

          by miasmo on Tue May 17, 2005 at 11:33:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  thanks. (none / 0)

            I hope others follow in your path.  Just a reminder:

            "DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 3, 2005. The Commission will hold a hearing on the proposed rules on June 28-29, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. Anyone wishing to testify at the hearing must file written comments by the due date and must include a request to testify in the written comments.

            ADDRESSES: All comments must be in writing, must be addressed to Mr. Brad C. Deutsch, Assistant General Counsel, and must be submitted in either electronic, facsimile, or hard copy form.  Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt and consideration. Electronic comments must be sent to either internet@fec.gov or submitted through the Federal eRegulations Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Any commenters who submit electronic comments and wish to testify at the hearing on this rulemaking must also send a copy of their comments to internettestify@fec.gov. If the electronic comments include an attachment, the attachment must be in the Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) or Microsoft Word (.doc) format. Faxed comments must be sent to (202) 219-3923, with hard copy follow-up. Hard copy comments and hard copy follow-up of faxed comments must be sent to the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463. All comments must include the full name and postal service address of the commenter or they will not be considered. The Commission will post comments on its Web site after the comment period ends. The hearing will be held in the Commission's ninth floor meeting room, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC."

            Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

            by Adam B on Tue May 17, 2005 at 11:47:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Reid bill (none / 0)

      You mentioned the Reid bill. Can you provide a link? What is the status of the bill? Is this something I should email my Senators about?

      Chomsky Fever! John McCain sucks.

      by miasmo on Tue May 17, 2005 at 08:48:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the reid bill (none / 1)

        It's S. 678, and it would exclude communications over the Internet from the legal definition of "public communications" -- i.e., that which gets regulated.

        People here have disagreed as to whether it's the best approach to the issue -- (a), whether it goes far enough in protecting speech rights, and (b) whether it opens too many avenues for coordinated speech which should be disfavored.  (I.e., a 527/PAC could totally coordinate with a campaign as to what its website should say, whereas it couldn't with its tv ads.)

        Its language has also been incorporated by Republicans into a 527 "reform" bill, about which I wrote here.

        Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

        by Adam B on Tue May 17, 2005 at 08:59:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 54 comments