Daily Kos

The FEC Project: Background On What's Going On

by Adam B

Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:43:20 AM PDT

(From the diaries -- kos)

After the much-visited Mike Krempasky post yesterday about the Reid Proposal and much heat but little light, I wanted to take a minute to explain what's going on here.  In order:

  • When McCain-Feingold was passed, it didn't really mention the internet at all.  So in 2002, as part of their gap-filling function, the FEC passed regulations defining "public communication" (as in, that which the FEC would regulate generally) as "a communication by means of any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising. The term public communication shall not include communications over the Internet."  

  • Under that regulation, Internet communications, no matter how closely they would be coordinated with political parties or a candidate's campaign, could not be considered "coordinated" under the FEC's regulations.

  • Moreover, under the existing state of regulations, websites not owned by campaigns had no obligation to disclose when campaigns had paid for content.  

  •  Reps. Shays and Meehan believed that this absence of regulation undermined the intent of campaign finance reform, so they sued the FEC to overturn the regulation as violative of Congress' intent.  Last fall, they won, as Judge Kollar-Kotelly held that exempting the internet from regulation would subvert the Act.  She ordered the FEC to pass new regulations to cover it.

  •  And last month, they did.  This post outlines what the new regulations would do, largely protecting bloggers from regulation under the same exemption that protects print and tv journalism, but making sure that the flow of money and coordination over the internet is disclosed.

  • Over the next two months, citizens have the right to comment on these regulations, and I am representing Markos, Atrios, Matt Stoller and others in doing so.  You damn well better as well, as explained here and in the comments.

  • At the same time, Sen. Reid has proposed a bill that would restore the FEC's original "no regulation" rulemaking.  That's what Mike wrote about yesterday, which now has a Republican sponsor in the House. (But while many are hopeful that it passes, we have to prepare for the alternative as well.)

Under either path, unpaid volunteer advocacy will proceed unabated.  The only question is how to deal with the flow of money, and whether citizens' interests are better protected under the FEC's proposed regulation or Reid's proposal.

I'm happy to answer questions, and I'm sure Mike and others will drop by as well.  To be sure, this stuff is complicated.

Poll

What makes more sense to you?

20%22 votes
37%40 votes
42%46 votes

| 108 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 114 comments

  •  tips and recs and stuff (4.00 / 15)

    "Meanwhile, the School of Hotel Administration at Cornell University devised this set of supplementary tipping guidelines:
    • for a bellman carrying luggage, $1 a bag
    • for a doorman hailing a taxi, $1
    • for restaurant waiters, 15-20 percent of the check
    • for a bartender, 10-15 percent of the tab
    • for a room service waiter, 10-15 percent of the check (if not included in service)
    • for a concierge who makes your dinner or show reservations, $5 to $50
    • for a parking valet when the car is retrieved, $1 to $2
    • for a hotel housekeeper, $1 to $2 a day

    Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

    by Adam B on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:20:20 AM PDT

  •  Thank you - (none / 1)

    It is complicated. Knew we could count on you to summarize, and provide links for further education - which I am about to undertake before trying to respond to the poll.

    Have you seen the Obama Scrapbook?

    by Catte Nappe on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:35:47 AM PDT

  •  Just a last note, not to be confused with (4.00 / 8)

    the last word, which is yours.

    I was wrong.
    You are right.
    I distrust the GOP and Krempasky implicitly and with good reason.
    You seem to feel they are in earnest here and the facts you've prsented suggest you are correct.
    You are better educated and much superior in your knowledge of this, and pretty much everything, than I am.
    You are completely right.
    I was completely wrong.
    Moreover, my good intentions at urging skepticism of the GOP and Krempasky don't count for much.
    I have asked Kos to delete my account and all my posts.
    He will not.
    But you won't hear from me again.
    I humbly apologize.
    Good luck, Godspeed, and goodbye.

    by Kimberly Stone on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:45:26 AM PDT

    •  Briefly (none / 0)

      Skepticism is warranted.  Absolutely.  But I thought last night went a bit far -- once you make your point, trust that people understand it, and move on.

      Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

      by Adam B on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:49:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ah, Kimberly (4.00 / 5)

      one mistake (based on completely valid skepticism) doesn't require this by any means. We've all made mistakes. It's over, we move on, and tomorrow there's something else to talk about. Please hang around for it.

      "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams.

      by mcjoan on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:59:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't go (3.50 / 2)

      The Repukes have been so nasty and underhanded with every single thing they've done since taking office your skepticism is not only warranted, it's necessary.

      You made several valid points that still hold water even after this explanatory diary.

      1. Black is white, day is night.  100% accurate portrayal of Republican PR.

      2. Republicans will back a Dem initiative ONLY if it serves their interests.

      3. Red State supports the fascist takeover of America.

      4. People like Krempasky are who I think '0.Troll' should be reserved for.

      5. At what point does the enabling done over the past 5 years (by people like Krempasky) make you so sick to your stomach that pride no longer allows you to give them time of day? EVEN IF THEY PURPORT TO WANT TO HELP.

      Let's make rope.

      by AnonymousArmy on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:12:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where's the fun in leaving? (none / 1)

      Kimberly,

      Mea culpa and hair shirt wardraobe addition should suffice for anyone for an apology.  And only an idiot never admits to a mistake (think Boosh) or never makes one (think too insecure to try anything new types).

      Stick around.  i have little doubt but that I have disagreed with you more than I have agreed with you.  So what?  I think that makes you family, no?

      Where's the fun in leaving?  

      by jibsail on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:45:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't go (none / 1)

      Just think of it as a cathartic episode.

      Sometimes people need to blow off steam to remain healthy.  And god knows this admin. is generating more episodes in me.

      I however go out to rural highways drive real fast with the windows open and the music blaring, but to each his own.

      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

      by delver rootnose on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please don't go. (none / 0)

      Us blue Texans need each other!

      Stop violence against women!

      by AndyT on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:03:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Piling On Here (none / 1)

      I truly appreciated your heated skepticism yesterday. I sent mojo your way for expressing the SAME discomforts I was feeling, but wasn't able to articulate. Maybe the future will show you were utterly and completely in the wrong. Well, guess what, so have we ALL been at some point in our lives. Regret it then, but for now, keep plugging along with your guns blazing!

      You were NOT speaking only for yourself yesterday. Please DO stick around...

      SUPPORT CrashingtheStates!

      by RNinNC on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:05:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But I love your posts (none / 0)

      so you can't go.

      I wasn't blogging last night, so I don't know what particular incident you're talking about.  All I can say is, if you did something you're now embarrassed about, I'm sure it was done in the spirit of lively discourse, which is what this site is all about.

      You've apologized, and the apology has been accepted.  If necessary, go and sulk offline for a bit, but do understand that you make a good contribution here (I, for one, often find myself fouring you) and you shouldn't stop doing that just because you feel like a twit about something for five minutes.

      by Loquatrix on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:10:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't know what happened (none / 1)

      but I can't imagine it could have been worse than anything I've done.

      Why would you leave? You have too much of value to say and do here for that.

      I would be very disappointed to see you do this.

      Just turn the page.

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:59:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don;t go (none / 0)

      You were not completely wrong.
      Your good intentions do count.

      This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

      by Agathena on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:23:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A significant correction (none / 1)

    "Under either path, unpaid volunteer advocacy will proceed unabate"

    Unfortunately, that's not true. The FEC chairman admitted as much at the Cap. Hill panel two wees ago - the exemption is for "individuals" - and where there are more than one "individual" therein lies a committee - or at least forces an additional evaluation.

    And don't get me started on the silly "incidential, isolated, and occasional" use safe harbor.

    by mkrempasky on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:50:17 AM PDT

    •  the safe harbor (none / 1)

      What Mike's referring to is that, under present regulations, you're not allowed to use corporate resources for political campaigning for more than one hour a week, or four hours a month.  It's meant to prevent subversion of the general prohibition against corporations directly funding political activity by, instead, encouraging paid staff to help favored campaigns.

      Sure, the amounts are too narrow for anyone who blogs from work.  But, still, they're never going to enforce something that strictly; it exists as a way to catch the egregious scofflaws, I believe.

      Remind me about the "committee" issue -- what did they say, exactly?

      Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

      by Adam B on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:58:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  two things (4.00 / 2)

        1. the problem with the corporate issue is the environment which it creates - imagine bloggers filing complaints based on timestamps! And while the FEC mentions the common practice of companies allowing people to take their laptops home and do personal stuff - you still have the absurd stricture on using it to blog.

        2. on the cmte thing - basically, Thomas (and FEC staff) explained to me that yes, "individual" means something very specific in the FEC's eyes - and at the same time, groups of individuals are treated differently. I'll dig up the transcript, but when a college kid asked Thomas about this specific scenario (remember, we're talking about the volunteer exception) - couple kids run a blog together, Thomas wasn't able to tell him he'd be fine - by any stretch. Even Thomas raised the question of whether that would mean he'd be a political committee.

        And don't get me started on bloggers who incorporate to protect themselves from liability or to take advantage for tax/revenue purposes. If you fall into that category (as more and more are) - you're basically screwed if the FEC doesn't grant you one of the media exemptions.

        by mkrempasky on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:04:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's very easy to police. (none / 0)

        Slap a big company with a subpoena for internet records claiming FEC violations.

        Find traffic corresponding to blog posting and publicly fine them.

        The result would be corporate self regulation and political content will be strictly curtailed at the workplace.

        Let's make rope.

        by AnonymousArmy on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:24:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  A quick question... (4.00 / 2)

    How does this affect 501C3 organizations, specifically, suppose you have a 501C3 but take no salary.  And while you, of course, do not lobby on specific legislation of support any candidates for office, you still allow people on your blog to link to 527 organizations, etc. which may.

    Where do you fall in the line-up?

    "I don't know" is always an acceptable answer, as is, "I don't care" and "It's none of your damn business".

    Thank you.

    by jibsail on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:54:01 AM PDT

    •  I'm not sure (none / 0)

      That's beyond my expertise.

      Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

      by Adam B on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:11:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's hope (none / 0)

        Let's hope that it is out of anyone's expertise and silently falls away into the night...

        by jibsail on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:51:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's still... (none / 1)

          ...an interesting question. And may or may not silently fall away.

          Let's say I have a 501(c)3; and of course I don't do any lobbying or politicking. But I have volunteers, and visitors, and beneficiaries of my 501(c)3'ish services. And darn it - they sometimes show up at my brick and mortar location wearing "Vote for Bozo" buttons. And they hand out fliers to each other urging attendance at the "Bozo Bonanza" fund raiser. In fact, one of them can't go to the Bonanza so he whips out his check book and writes a check for the Re-elect Bozo fund right there on the spot. What am I supposed to do about it? Tell them to quit wasting time and get back to their envelope stuffing?

          Have you seen the Obama Scrapbook?

          by Catte Nappe on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:17:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you're smart you do (none / 0)

            You tell them to get the heck out of there because it jeopardizes your status with the IRS.

            Remember - 501(c)3's are governed principly by the InFernal Revenue Service, not the FEC.

            by mkrempasky on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:21:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly right (none / 0)

              And as it should be.  501c3's are set up specifically as CHARITIES.  Under the tax code, that means they are restricted in what political activity they can do.  At the risk of sounding like a ninny, if you are using a 501c3 to link to 527s, you are abusing your tax status.  There are lots of other ways to do it legally.  

              -4.25, -7.28 I'm for the war, but I'm against our troops...

              by gmoney on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 09:19:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  something I've been pondering (none / 1)

      with respect to The Culture Of Life Foundation and Institute.  It's a 501(c)(3)...all contributions are deductible, and lobbying is strictly limited.  Their site links to Right To Life organizations in every state, which are permitted to lobby.    

      J. Patrick Rooney is possibly the largest benefactor to republicans in the last ten years, and the most profitable recipient of the Medicare reform corporate give away.  

      It's impossible not to wonder how much these tax-subsidized yet off the FEC-radar foundations get away with.  And where the line is drawn between "research" and lobbying.

      by willowby on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:03:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Another quibble (none / 0)

    "And last month, they did.  This post outlines what the new regulations would do, largely protecting bloggers from regulation under the same exemption that protects print and tv journalism, but making sure that the flow of money and coordination over the internet is disclosed."

    AC, I think it worthwhile to point out that you and I disagree pretty significantly on this interpretation.

    The proposed rules entertain the possibility of the media exemption, but offer no criteria by which it would be extended, and worse - describe it as a case-by-case process. (the case-by-case, of course is driven by the General Counsel and professional staff of the FEC, and we know where they stand)

    Additionally, Scott Thomas admits that the FEC hasn't really considered blogs that do express solicititation for candidates, either.

    by mkrempasky on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:55:36 AM PDT

    •  three things (none / 1)

      1.  Feel free to call me Adam. :)

      2.  We do disagree, and there are criteria.  The proposed regs would allow (new language underlined) that "Any cost incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by any broadcasting station (including a cable television operator, programmer or producer), newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, whether the news story, commentary, or editorial appears in print or over the Internet, is not an expenditure unless the facility is owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate,"

      3.  FEC Advisory Opinion 1980-109 expressly confronted whether a member of the media could do fundraising for candidates through his magazine.  The answer was yes, so long as he didn't touch the money himself but had it go directly to the campaign.

      Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

      by Adam B on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:03:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ah yes (none / 0)

        Those aren't criteria. Damn, I really have to finish HTML-izing the transcript from that event, it's in the Q&A period. Lemme get back to you.

        by mkrempasky on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:06:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  On that advisory opinion (none / 0)

        The porblem with answering  is that AOs aren't really precedent.  They only apply to the requester and anyone in a similar position in all material respects.  This one also dates from before the MCFL opinion which discusses how a "special edition" of a newsletter sent to a much larger group won't qualify as a "periodical" eligible for the exemption.  

        I do not know how the current commission would view the same question if it was asked of them today.  They might look at the change in editorial policy as say it is not exempt, or they might
        look at the consistent distribution and other dfactors and see a bona fide press activity.

        That's the beauty of the "case-by-case" approach.  You can't know for sure.

        by mkrempasky on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:33:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Oh Boy1 (3.50 / 2)

    There is no way,,,I repeat, no way, my blond head is going to understand the jargon in those bills.  

    What I want to know is this:  The only thing I'd like addressed is the payment disclosure issue.  I would like it to be mandatory that payments from candidates, parties, etc. are disclosed by blogs, bloggers, individuals, etc.  Do either of these bills cover that, and that alone?

    And Kimber, please rethink the leaving thing.  I, as well as so many others, look forward to your posts and would miss you.

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 4130+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

    by Miss Blue on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:06:28 PM PDT

  •  Law 'n' Order (4.00 / 3)

    When the Wild West consisted of a few trappers and some dirt scrabble farmers, there wasn't much need for law'n'order. When there were enough of them around to open up a saloon and a general store they still pretty much policed themselves. Then the saloon adds a second story and opens a whore house, and the owner of the general store starts a bank, and the traveling preacher settles down and starts a church (and marries the school-marm) - well, pretty soon they decide they need a sheriff.

    Just a few years ago this debate would have been a non-issue. It hasn't been that long since the on-line community was mostly geeks and nerds, teen-age gamers, some academics, and a small but growing number of regular folk who were proud they knew how to log onto AOL or Yahoo. It took some considerable skill to put up a web page that looked reasonably professional. The amateur jobs looked seriously amateurish. Now anybody and everybody can put up a slick front.  And with only modest care in presenting their content they can easily keep "agendas" hidden and low key from all but the most rabid political junkies and skeptics. And the guys with the most money will be most effective at it.

    I think we have to vote for the FEC approach; and trust that bipartisan efforts from folks like you and Krempasky will keep it reasonable. We've had GOPUSA = Talon = Thune campaign. We've had the blitz of print media types revealed as accepting administration payment to push position. There is too much obvious opportunity for political shenanigans.

    Have you seen the Obama Scrapbook?

    by Catte Nappe on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:21:47 PM PDT

  •  What about VoIP? (none / 0)

    I am curious about whether this creates a loophole where phone-banking would not be regulated if it was initiated using a Voice-over-IP provider (e.g., Vonage). Since communication over the Internet is explicitly excluded, would that trump the preceding clause that said telephone banking was regulated? Has anyone looked into this?

    by clang on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:09:44 PM PDT

    •  peering fun (none / 0)

      If VoIP is indeed exempted when it's actually over IP, who's responsible for determining whether a VoIP call gets transferred to a POTS line? Would it then be covered under this legislation/regulation?

      I can see this getting left unanswered until some PACs decide to place all their calls through VoIP. Hey, at least it'd get some coverage.

      for the animals | for the earth | for yourself :: go vegan

      by kennyt on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:57:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  David Chalmers (none / 0)

    Is anyone investigating what this guys ties to the white house are?

    The dumber that people think you are, the more surprised they'll be when you kill them EDMOND DANTES

    by jbspags on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:24:20 PM PDT

  •  I support regulating blogs (none / 0)

    ...but ONLY when it comes to disclosing their affiliation with campaigns (campaigns or parties or organisations have paid for content or are somehow sponsoring the blog).

    Otherwise, hands off.

    I made that quite clear in the diary started by the RedState.org fellow--but there was too much emotional arguing around it and no one could see it for the smoke, I'm afraid.

    I do not support any proposal that does not regulate blogs to some extent--because the lack of regulation WOULD undermine the spirit of campaign reform.

    There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

    by Shadowthief on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:51:12 PM PDT

  •  By The Way (none / 0)

    How can you not love these poll results -- Kossacks equally split between Yes, No, and Huh?

    Do I need to, at some point, do a basic overview of how campaign finance law works?

    Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

    by Adam B on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:26:20 PM PDT

    •  well it might (none / 0)

      keep you from yammering about a Democratic primary that's seventeen months away in a state you only fly into on occasion to get to Cape Cod.  :)

      Which is code for I'm in favor of a basic review of campaign finance law, please, in case you're looking for a show of hands.

      And many thanks for your efforts thus far!

      by willowby on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:13:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How can one blame them? (none / 1)

      First, a confusing diary on the main page from some chap at RedState.org, followed by tonnes of posts from Kossacks who completely misunderstood the issue, and now an offer of tutorial that is so snide and condescending that leaves a bad taste in my mouth (and I am one of those who definitely knows what is and is not proposed, and has already made up his mind what he will and will not support).

      The explanation is quite simple:

      Either blogs that receive money from campaign or partisan organisations will be included in federal laws and regulations governing campaign finance, or they will not.  There will be no regulation of blogs who are not affiliated with campaigns or partisan organisations.

      The possible consequences of regulation?  It is possible there may be some chilling of free speech, although I do not think it is likely.

      The almost-certain consequences of failure to regulate?  More of what we saw in the South Dakota campaign, in which bloggers, acting without regulation, acted as Thune's cyber hitmen against Senator Daschle.  If that happens,major blogs like DailyKos, et al, will cease to become independent voices and will be suspected of being the electronic versions of Jeff Gannon.

      There you are--a complete tutorial without the snide condescension (what you Americans call "major attitude").

      There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

      by Shadowthief on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:46:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  please do! (none / 0)

      McCain-Feingold might be a good starting point.

      disincorporated
      music, politics, &c

      by nota bene on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:54:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yup (none / 0)

      And stick it in the dKosopedia so you can just link to it near the top of future diaries. The fewer "huh?"s the better.

      by jcberk on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 10:41:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Old news: Blogs and the PA (none / 0)

    I'm sure you have seen this, but just in case you didn't:

    Patriot act extends to blogs critical of government

    An article in the Village Voice highlights a win for American values and liberty as a particularly heinous part of the Patriot Act has been struck down by a Federal District Judge. But it is also offers a chilling reminder of just how far reaching and anti-American this act really is.

        "The provision we challenged [that the judge struck down]," says Jaffer, "allows the FBI to issue NSLs against 'wire or electronic service communication providers.' Telephone companies and Internet service providers [are included.]" As Judge Marrero noted, the FBI could also use an NSL "to discern the identity of someone whose anonymous web log, or 'blog,' is critical of the Government."

        Jaffer adds that by requiring information from telephone companies and Internet providers, "The FBI could . . . effectively obtain a political organization's membership list, like the NAACP or the ACLU, [and could] obtain the names of people with whom a journalist has communicated over the Internet."

        Furthermore - dig this - every National Security Letter comes with a gag order. The recipients are forbidden to tell any other person that the FBI has demanded this information, and can't even tell their lawyers that the long hand of the government is scooping up their data.

        As Judge Marrero said in his decision, this omnivorous invasion of privacy is so broad that it mandates this gag rule "in every case, to every person, in perpetuity, with no vehicle for the ban to ever be lifted from the recipient."

    Read that again. The abuses are so outrageous and so broad it is nothing less than an affront to our constitution. It's an affront to every red blooded, liberty loving American. Luckily, one of those pesky judges Ashcroft hates so much struck down this provision. We all need to watch this case as it moves up the courts. Bush and his likely new AG Gonzales are big advocates of the PA, so look for them to fight for this one. We must fight back to make sure this anti-liberty, un-American piece of legislation is ends up where it belongs or else we make a mockery of the words "liberty and justice for all."

    The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

    by lawnorder on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 01:58:42 PM PDT

Permalink | 114 comments