Daily Kos

FEC Project: Well, *I* Can Hear You

by Adam B

Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:12:53 AM PDT

(From the diaries -- kos)

As our FEC Project rolls along and I prepare the Kos/Atrios/BOPNews response to the propose rules, and especially given the diaries over the past day, I wanted to open up this space for people to talk, specifically, about the proposed regulations.

First, this diary explains what's happening and why. In short, in the absence of S. 678 passing, the FEC will be issuing regulations this summer, and it is our obligation to try and make sure they are as wise as possible.

You can read the proposed regulations via this link, which I urge you to do. I've briefly summarized them here.

So read the regulations.  Tell me what you think, because I want to incorporate as much insight as possible here:

  • will they accomplish what they set out to regulate?
  • are they unfair? overbroad? underinclusive?
  • will they impact your participation in the political blogosphere?
  • is there a better way to do it?

Again, let me make this clear: if you have any comment you want to make to the FEC regarding these regulations, you do not need to be a lawyer or have a lawyer. It is your right and obligation as a citizen to email your comments directly to the FEC at internet@fec.gov, and I strongly encourage you to do so.

While I can help make the legal side clearer, y'all know better than me what these regulations will do on the ground.

Let me give one example: as you probably know, it is generally illegal to devote any resources of a corporation towards political activity. They've established a "safe harbor", however, which states that if it's not more than one hour a week, or four hours a month, then it's not significant enough to regulate -- and they want to extend this to the use of a corporation's computers and internet access as well. Clearly, that's not enough for the users here who work at corporations, but can you think of a better way to allow you to do what you do here -- while protecting us from Wal-Mart establishing "Blog On Behalf Of Your Favorite Republican Day" for their officials?

Any questions, comments, etc: bring it. I'm here.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 85 comments

  •  thanks you for doing this (none / 0)

    This is an important case.

    by Matt Stoller on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 06:16:51 AM PDT

  •  hello . . . bueller . . . (none / 0)

    Seriously, given all the activity yesterday, I expected more of a response here.

    Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

    by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 07:09:53 AM PDT

    •  thanks for posting (none / 0)

      I also wondered why there's not more discussion here. Your last diary shed enough light on the issue for me, so I haven't gotten involved in the more recent discussions. Maybe it would be a good idea to cross-post a link to this diary elsewhere. It might be being overlooked in the even more abundant than usual plethora of good diaries this morning.

      by chantedor on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 07:56:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You have to give people a moment (none / 1)

      to read the proposed rule-making!

      Why not add a "shirking provision" to 114.9 which would make occasional, incidental, and isolated to read that as long as you are acting in a political activity using a corporation or labor organization's   "facilities" outside of the scope of your employment  (i.e. for personal use) that you are exempted from the regulation. Then define what is "personal use" and what is "corporate use." Wal-Mart corporate-a-thon would be corporate use, while someone who is board during a meeting making a post on Kos would not.

      by Me on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:50:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We Should Stick With: No Regulation (none / 0)

    Zero regulation is nice and clear. No regulations passed in this climate will be favorable to us. Regardless of the wording of the legislation the rules will be enforced prejudicially against us. And if opposition to legislation dies, last minute changes and additions totally screwing us will be added.

    If we had balance in the congress we could debate fine points. I don't think we have that luxury. I think an activist community is a blunt object, without the representative muscle in the legislature to finesse a favorable/equitable law.

    by NewDirection on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:16:40 AM PDT

    •  Let Me Reiterate, Then (none / 0)

      In the absence of S.678 passing, there will be regulation.

      And let me share, in the interest of equal time, a portion of the Shays-Meehan brief before the District Court where they argued against the FEC's imposition of the equivalent of S.678:

      Moreover, Congress repeatedly rejected attempts to exclude activities over the Internet from regulation. In the Senate, Senator Bennett's "Internet Freedom Protection Act," a bill that would have exempted many individual Internet political activities while continuing to regulate paid advertising, solicitation, and corporate and union activities over the new medium, died in committee. In the House, Representative DeLay's proposed amendment to the Shays-Meehan legislation, which would have exempted all Internet activities from regulation except with respect to "the solicitation or receipt of contributions," was decisively rejected 160-268 after a debate in which the proposal was condemned as a "poison pill," an Internet "loophole," "a step backwards," and an "anti-reform" that would make the Internet "the favored conduit for special interests to fund soft money and stealth issue ads into federal campaigns."

      And a footnote to the last part:
      Id. at H8256 (statement of Rep. Allen) (explaining that DeLay proposal would "create[] a potentially huge loophole through which big donors, corporations, and unions could pour unlimited funds into Internet ad campaigns to directly promote the election or defeat of a candidate. This would spread the disease of sham issue ads from the TV to the Internet."). See also id. (statement of Rep. Campbell) ("[I]t is apparent to me that the gentleman [Rep. DeLay] would not do anything to disclose the Red Chinese Communists funding a huge campaign for a candidate for office in the United States, provided they use the Internet loophole which his amendment creates, and that is exactly the reason why we have disclosure ... . If the means of dissemination are to be controlled, the Internet should be covered no more and no less.") (emphasis added). For the House vote rejecting the DeLay amendment, see id. at H8260-61.

      Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

      by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:25:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No regulation? What about in an emergency? (none / 0)

      No legislation needed. If the administration thinks that blogs might have coded messages for terrorist cells. Or agitation to use the election to overthrow one-party rule. Finds some 'chatter' early next October?

      Could an executive order restrict anonymous posting to blogs? Delay posts for 48 hours while the NSA scrubs them? Codify a special burden of proof for statements that detract from officials or their policies? Seize domain names and/or frequency allocations pending trial?

      This isn't exactly related to the finance angle they're talking about now, but it's another serious danger we have to watch out for.

      Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

      by chimpy on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 10:45:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  my worry (none / 0)

    If friendly commentary or story selection is qualified as corporate contribution, than

    (a) a popular blog exceeds limits damns fast

    (b) what is the status of Fox News and Sinclair Communications?

    Hypothetically, if Kos charges 1k per ad per week, then every week with a friendly story could be counted as 1k in kind contribution, and with 5k limit, Kos would be allowed to do it for 5 weeks during a campaign cycle -- or 2 weeks with 2k limit.

    Also hypothetically, if MyDD has rates that are 10 times smaller, their contribution would be evaluated as respectively smaller.  But links to MyDD would count as coordination and an in-kind contribution in itself.

    I need an explanation that regulation would not cripple political activity of blogs.

    by Piotr on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:21:12 AM PDT

  •  No regulation - period (none / 0)


    I guess I am NOT concerned about Wal Mart establishing "blog for your favorite Republican day"-

    I'd rather keep it all unregulated (or have a bill that specifically carves out blogs as unregulated)--

    Why?

    You cannot fake grass-roots-- look at Bush and his Soc Sec town halls.  

    So let 'em exploit blogs.  We'll exploit em as well- I believe in this case the demographics of computer use are in OUR favor.

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:30:55 AM PDT

  •  It's beyond ironic (none / 0)

    that the GOP who assail any and all regulation of business (whether financial disclosure required by the SEC or emission controls imposed by the EPA) suddenly finds itself foursquare in support of the regulation of free speech.

    Maybe -- if we incorporated all these blogs and gave money to DeLay's PAC -- maybe that would have an effect.  What do you think?

    "I just had the basic view of the American public -- it can't be that bad out there." Marine Travis Williams after 11 members of his squad were killed.

    by Steven D on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:33:54 AM PDT

  •  Feingold - Are you going to Co-Sponsor S.678? (none / 0)

    Hey Russ - just in case you are following this today. KOS (all of us) here challenge you to get involved with S.678 and make this bill happen. Not to be too preachy here - just not sure a lot of us believe your recent blog that you understand what is at stake yere and that we need legislation to protect the freedoms we have expressing ourselves (just like you)on blogs. If you want to be respected in the blog-a-sphere please sponsor S. 678. To be real - honest - and very different than so many of Beltway mouthpieces you need to act like it. All of us wait to hear the news that you will be co-sponsoring S.678. Thanks also to Kos for telling it like it is. I for one still have you on my 2008 consider list.

    ObamaNation 2009!..... Rebecca > www.Kaplan4Oakland.org (4 coveted City-At-Large Council Seat)..... Gavin Newsom Governor California 2010......

    by AustinSF on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:46:55 AM PDT

    •  Don't speak for "all of us." (none / 0)

      I at least still see an open question as to whether regulations can be finalized with a sufficiently light touch. If not I'd support a blanket statutory exemption.

      This is a test of the Emergency Free Speech System.
      This is only a test.
      If this had been an actual emergency, I'd already be locked up.

      by ben masel on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 09:07:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Two Concerns (none / 0)

    1. Exxon decides to fund Karl Rove's boyfriend to write a blog called "Support Tom Delay with Cold Hard Cash." The website address is flashed each time the FoxNews symbol rotates in the corner of the screen. CNN covers its every utterance on Inside Politics during their blog segment. No disclosure needed, perfectly legit.

    2. As lester asks, what is the definition of "over the internet"? Will fund-raising over VOIP telephones become exempt as well?

    Big, big loopholes, or tin-foil??

    SUPPORT CrashingtheStates!

    by RNinNC on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:57:58 AM PDT

    •  Here's the thing (none / 0)

      The website is an independent expenditure on behalf of a federal candidate.  Corporations can't do that.

      The restrictions on corporate political activity are broader than the definitions being altered here.  See, e.g., 11 CFR 114.14:

      (a)(1) Corporations and labor organizations shall not give, disburse, donate or otherwise provide funds, the purpose of which is to pay for an electioneering communication, to any other person.

      (2) A corporation or labor organization shall be deemed to have given, disbursed, donated, or otherwise provided funds under paragraph (a)(1) of this section if the corporation or labor organization knows, has reason to know, or willfully blinds itself to the fact, that the person to whom the funds are given, disbursed, donated, or otherwise provided, intended to use them to pay for an electioneering communication.

      Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

      by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 09:11:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We need regulation of blogs (none / 0)

    I posted a diary on this issue (complete with a poll!).

    It's at this link:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/26/21343/6557

    Kos is wrong.  Atrios is wrong.  TalkLeft is wrong.

    We need regulation of the blogosphere.

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

    by Shadowthief on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 09:38:43 AM PDT

    •  you wer e wrong on a key factual point (none / 0)

      Atrios always had his Media Matters affiliation posted on the main page.

      Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

      by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 09:43:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Take it up with CBS News (none / 0)

        CBS News reported the story, not I.  Contact them and let them know that they committed a factual error in that story.  

        Quite frankly, I think CBS News has far more credibility on the issue than someone on an Internet blog--and unless you can provide proof of your statement, I'll stick with the version of facts presented by CBS.

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

        by Shadowthief on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 09:52:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  they were contacted (none / 0)

          Link.

          Go back here for an example of the disclaimer which was constantly posted.

          Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

          by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 09:57:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The CBS story was accurate (none / 0)

            Atrios' disclaimer reads:  "Disclaimer:
            This is a personal web site. It is not a production of Media Matters for America (MMFA). Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of MMFA. Preferences for electoral candidates posted on this site have not been expressed using any MMFA resources."

            The CBS story says that Atrios did NOT disclose that he was a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America.

            This disclosure merely says that Atrios' web site is not a production of MMFA.  

            Here's exactly what the CBS story says:

            The affiliations and identities of bloggers are not always apparent. Take writer Duncan Black, who blogged under the name Atrios. His was a popular liberal blog. During part of the period he was blogging, Black was a senior fellow at a liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America. Critics in the blogosphere said this fact wasn't fairly disclosed.

            Do you have a screenshot showing that Mr. Black disclosed his senior fellowship at MMFA during the time in question?  If not, then the CBS story is accurate.

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

            by Shadowthief on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 10:05:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Coming soon to an Internet Near You: BLOG WARS! (none / 1)

    The blog regulation is divided into three camps:

    1. People who are confused about the issue;
    2. People who take a laissez-faire approach and think people can sort it out for themselves;
    3. People who are concerned that the credibility of blogs will be impugned as "blog wars" break out, with cross-fire accusations of "paid shill" bleat across the T3 cables.

    I won't address #1, here's my take on the other two camps:

    Laissez-faire:  What if you read a blog that writes an article titled "Vote for Finkelburger" and doesn't tell you that, in fact, Finkelburger is paying that blog $20,000 a month to write favourable articles?  In other words, the blogger is pulling a Gannon/Guckert (or an Armstrong Williams if you prefer).  Would you be persuaded by the blogger if the blogger disclosed that he works for the candidate?  Maybe and maybe not--but wouldn't it be good to have all the information?

    Regulation:  Pro-regulators get two arguments waved in their faces--1) First Amendment, 2)Lack of regulation of other media.

    First Amendment:  Being required to disclose your financial tie with a candidate or organisation doesn't stop you from saying what you want to say--it just lets the people know that you are not a free agent and are part of a campaign.

    Lack of regulation of other media:  I advocate restoring the Fairness Doctrine and strenghtening it...FOX News and Sinclair Broadcasting would be in plenty of hot soup if the Fairness Doctrine were still around.  But just because other media aren't regulated means we can't regulate blogs.

    Think of a blog as an editorial.  If an editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times got a $20,000 cheque from Congressman Finkelburger to write an editorial endorsing Finkleburger for Senate, wouldn't you want to know that?

    Now, newspapers have proven themselves capable of self-policing for the most part, although in the case of Judith Miller at the New York Times, that self-regulation appears to have broken down.

    Perhaps blogs will prove themselves capable of self-policing, just as newspapers do, and no regulation will be necessary.

    However, my opinion is that the high-ranking bloggers are in a panic about this because they want to retain the reputation of being independent operators when, in fact, they are receiving funds from candidates and campaigns.  One can't be a free agent AND receive a fat cheque--it simply doesn't work that way.

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

    by Shadowthief on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 09:51:13 AM PDT

    •  under current regulations (none / 0)

      Campaigns are required to disclose and did disclose all disbursements to bloggers, just as they would to any other outside vendor.  The Thune bloggers' payments were included in his FEC filings; you just had to wade through 3500+ pages of unsearchable PDF to find it.

      Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

      by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 09:54:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  3500+ pages... (none / 0)

        ...there you go.  Proof that the current regulations do not fulfill the purpose of informing the public.

        I want to know if someone is a paid shill, up front, not a month after the damn election is over.

        I want to know who I'm listening to--what are the blogger's motives?  Give me ALL the information and let me sort it out for myself.

        I notice that all of the bloggers who are hopping and down and crying "no regulation!" have gotten themselves jobs blogging for candidates and campaigns.  Well, that's understandable--protecting their own financial interest.

        But the financial interest of a few highly-trafficked bloggers' websites is NOT synonymous with the public interest of being fully and accurately informed.  

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

        by Shadowthief on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 10:00:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  again, parallelism (none / 0)

          The Senate exempts itself from electronic filing of FEC reports; House and Presidential candidates do have to file in a searchable format.  Sen. Feingold is among those pressing for a change there.

          Why treat bloggers more harshly than other media?  Quarterly disclosure is the rule everywhere else (save electioneering communications); mah nishtana ha-blogosphere hazeh?

          Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

          by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 11:29:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But... (none / 0)

            Would a newspaper be allowed to accept payment for an endorsement, and not print the fact that they were paid for the endorsement in the article? It seems to me that a paid editorial is the same as a paid advertisement & should be regulated as such. In an article, it should be clearly noted in the text of the article (at the beginning?). In a blog, it could be mentioned in the text of each relevant story or just clearly noted on the homepage depending on whether the blog is supported by more then one candidate or not.

            -6.25/-7.90

            by mpayson on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 07:44:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Disclosure (none / 0)

      Then pundits on Tv shuold have to disclose too, but they dont.

      Buckeye State Blog

      by Pounder on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:42:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a great site and a great venue.... (4.00 / 13)

    and I am so pleased to get the many constructive responses people took time to post yesterday and today.  (I wanted to respond to yesterdays posts under this diary too.)

    As of noon today, I have read all of the comments that have been posted.  I do read them myself as soon as I can, but I won't pretend to be able to respond to every post.  I also read sites like dailykos, mydd, alternet, etc. because I find that the people who post or write for these sites are VERY well informed about the issues of the day.  It's good for me in my job to feel that things I am working on are important to people and that they understand the complexity of issues that come before the Senate.  Just like you, sometimes I don't agree with the conclusions posted, but I do think that there is a fundamental fairness to most of the comments that, for me, is very much in keeping with Wisconsin's tradition of civil discourse.

    One conclusion I don't agree with is that S. 678, Senator Reid's bill that Kos mentioned, is somehow an answer to the issue of blog regulation and that I should sign on to it.  Here's how I see that bill:  

    S. 678 is not just about blogging.  It would exempt all communications on the Internet from the definition of "public communication" in the campaign finance laws.  That is what the FEC tried to do by regulation after BCRA was passed in 2002.  But there was and is no support for that approach in the statute, and the federal court recognized that.  I supported the Shays-Meehan lawsuit that led to the ruling that the FEC had improperly applied the law in that and 14 other regulations out of the 19 that were challenged.  

    If Congress were to enact a statute exempting all Internet communications from regulation, it would open a huge loophole in BCRA's ban on soft money.  It would allow, for example, state parties to use unlimited soft money donations to attack Federal candidates on the Internet, using paid advertising and expensive video streaming.  It would allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of their shareholders' money denouncing one Federal candidate on websites even if that campaign was designed and directed by that candidate's opponent.  Opening this loophole would undo all of the successes of BCRA that we saw in 2004, from increasing the number of small dollar donations to reenergizing the party.  

    BCRA ended the practice of Members of Congress calling up wealthy individuals, unions, and corporations to ask for contributions of $100,000 or $200,000 or $1 million or even more, and then going to the floor of the House or Senate to vote on issues that directly impacted those interests. And it closed the loophole that started the soft money system by prohibiting state parties from using soft money to influence federal elections.  As much as I want to promote the use of the Internet for political dialogue, I cannot support a proposal that would open a loophole in BCRA for soft money to find its way back in the system.  

    Blogs should be able, however, to do whatever they like, say what they want, and link to whoever and whatever they want, with no interference.  And bloggers should be allowed to profit.  From the looks of the posts I see that many people believe that if bloggers are being paid by a campaign, they should have to disclose that, no matter how big they are - and that should be the responsibility of both the campaign and blogger.  I think that is a fair thing to consider.  I think that in this area disclosure, not restriction, is the probably best policy, and Kos agrees with that because he had his own disclaimer during the last election.  Of course, if the Reid bill were enacted, requiring even disclosure of these payments might very well be prohibited.  

    Sorry this is such a long response.  And I recognize that some may disagree with my assessment of the Reid bill.  I am certainly listening to the concerns of those who support that bill and who I believe share my support of free-wheeling blogging.   But I would ask you also to consider the other consequences of a complete exemption for all Internet communications.  The FEC is currently considering this whole area as required by the court decision.  I will be commenting on the FECs proposed rule to ensure that it permits robust political debate on the Internet, such as that seen on this and other blogs, without creating loopholes for soft money to once again flow into Federal campaigns.

    by Senator Russ Feingold on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 10:05:16 AM PDT

    •  Thank You. (none / 0)

      I think everyone needs to understand that there's a real debate to be had here, between the merits of the Reid bill versus regulation, and I'm glad you've come back here to discuss the other side.

      People need to take your post seriously and think for themselves here.  That's how democracy works.

      Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

      by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 10:10:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  one substantive question (none / 0)

      You write, regarding the Reid bill:
      It would allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of their shareholders' money denouncing one Federal candidate on websites even if that campaign was designed and directed by that candidate's opponent."

      Since the Reid bill only affects "public communications", won't the larger prohibition against corporate political activity in 2 USC 441b and the supporting regulations in 11 CFR 114 still bar corporations from doing so?

      (Take your time in responding.)

      Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

      by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 10:16:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with Senator Feingold (none / 0)

      The Honourable Mr. Feingold wrote:

      Blogs should be able, however, to do whatever they like, say what they want, and link to whoever and whatever they want, with no interference.  And bloggers should be allowed to profit.  From the looks of the posts I see that many people believe that if bloggers are being paid by a campaign, they should have to disclose that, no matter how big they are - and that should be the responsibility of both the campaign and blogger.  I think that is a fair thing to consider.  I think that in this area disclosure, not restriction, is the probably best policy, and Kos agrees with that because he had his own disclaimer during the last election.  Of course, if the Reid bill were enacted, requiring even disclosure of these payments might very well be prohibited.

      The Senator's proposal is both reasonable and workable--why, then, are the bloggers who got paid in the last campaign (and disclosed it!) fighting so hard against simple disclosure?  This makes no sense to me whatsoever--they are fighting regulations that require disclosure of information they already voluntarily make public.

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

      by Shadowthief on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 10:19:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  there's a difference (none / 0)

        Between voluntary disclosure and mandatory disclosure, which raises a whole nest of problems.  As Bob Bauer explains:
        Third, and perhaps most important, the inclusion of the activity within even the disclosure regulations sets the table for another visit, on other issues, from the regulators.  The proposal for disclaimer requirements for candidate-paid bloggers is a good example.  Joe Birkenstock is right: the change he has in mind could limit the disclaimer to payments to bloggers for political committee-paid "public communications."  But this change would be limited in effect only within the disclaimer regulations.  It would have consequences elsewhere in the law, and they are fairly serious in nature.  

        Assume that a blogger decides, for whatever reason, to accept payment from a candidate to cover her campaign, or positions on issues, intensely, for an agreed period.  Later the blogger devotes similar attention to another campaign, but this time, for reasons of friendship, passion, or reconsidered editorial policy, there is no charge.  There is every reason to believe that the blogger has opened himself to a complaint that he has made an -in kind" contribution to the second candidate. 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.111(a), (e)(1).  Under the relevant rules, the space provided is something of "value," an "in-kind" contribution," and the value would be the difference between what is charged to the first candidate and the amount charged--nothing--to the second.  11 C.F.R. §§ 100.111(e)(1)-(e)(2).  If the blogger is incorporated, this contribution is illegal; and even if he is not, the contribution has to be accounted for in other ways.  

            This result does not follow automatically from the inclusion of candidate-paid bloggers in the disclaimer rules, but a change in those rules certainly strengthens both the argument and the possibility of applying others.

        Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

        by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 10:52:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I understand... (none / 0)

          You cowboys don't want any fences around you.  You want to ride the Internet range freely.

          But the financial interests of certain bloggers ahem is not synonymous with the public interest of mandatory disclosure.

          Sad to see that the political bloggers are on the side of the paid shills, and against "we the people" and our right to know.  Well, at least we know where we stand:  bloggers are FOR THE PEOPLE (except when it interferes with making money).

          For the last time:   Mandatory disclosure does not harm those who are willing to reveal their financial ties; it only harms those with something to hide.

          If regulation does no harm, and may do some good by making the public more informed, why fight it?

          No, don't bother with another convoluted, self-serving answer.  I have grown weary of them.

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

          by Shadowthief on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 11:06:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  parallelism (none / 0)

            No other recipient of campaign money (that I know of) is under an obligation to disclose.  The obligations always and only fall on the candidate/PAC/party to reveal disbursements, not on the recipient.

            When the LA Times endorses John Kerry, does the editorial state "By the way, we've received $X in print advertising from Kerry, and $Y from Bush?"  No.  

            Why treat blogs more harshly than other media?

            Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

            by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 11:11:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not talking about advertising (none / 0)

              And you know it.  Or ought to.  You keep changing the terms of the debate and shifting examples so as to confuse the issue.

              Just to be clear:

              I am discussing bloggers who are paid shills for candidates.  If a blogger is receiving money directly from a campaign, an organisation, or a political party to promote that campaign, organisation, or party  then he ought to disclose that up-front.

              This is quite a different situation from political advertising.  First of all, I can read Kos' blogad rates, look at who's advertising, and figure out very well what money he's collected and from whom.  I don't need disclosure on that.

              I NEED DISCLOSURE FROM SOURCES WHO ARE NOT PUBLICLY REVEALED.  If a blogger is receiving money from non-advertising sources, it ought to be revealed.

              This is what Kos did when he revealed that he was blogging for Dean.  People knew that Kos favoured Dean and read his blogs accordingly.  It would have been dishonest of Kos to take the money and NOT disclose it.

              What if I start a blog titled "The Best Candidates for 2008" and I keep pushing Wesley Clark...never revealing that the Clark campaign is paying me $100,000 to do so?  That wouldn't bother you?  It bothers me.

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

              by Shadowthief on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 02:07:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Blogs should be treated differently (none / 0)

            Blogs are my papers.  These are my words and ideas.  The government does not have the right to censor my papers, to hold them or to take them away or to refuse to allow me to use them as I see fit within reason.  I ask for DKos to transmit to me his daily musings and ideas and transmit back to him my daily musings and ideas.  These documents are then published.  Such correspondance used to take weeks, now it takes seconds.  The fact that it is automated and augmented by a virtual printing press only reinforces its stature.  It is private correspondance and political speech and publishing all in one.

            Amendment [I.]

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            That is the law.  It is rooted in a fundamental civil liberty, and an innate human right, that is also outlined in the Declaration of Independance, that document is a fact of history.  The law and the principle is very clear.  I expect even Congress and the Rpesident to bow to that.  No one is above it.  They may have the ability and the power to supercede it, but not the right to do so.  No person has that right.  If some people are unethical, threatening or abusive we still have this right, it is not undone by that behavior.  

            The transmission of money is another matter.  That is commerce.  Tax it, track it, do whatever.  Follow and regulate the money within reason, not the speech.

            Pride goeth before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:8

            by PJ 7 on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:17:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Why not a compromise solution, Senator? (none / 0)

      Why not impose a moratorium on the rule-making until such time that the Congress may consider legislation that reforms the BCRA to deal with these issue?

      I can't speak for Kos or even most in the net roots, but I think many would find the process more palatable if these things were debated in Congress rather than in administrative rule-making.

      by Me on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 11:04:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Brevity no longer important (none / 1)

      "Sorry this is such a long response."

      An important distinction between the Net and old media is that here we can digest the minutae of proposed legislation. granted, the feedback on this isuue so far has been  lacking in such detail, but potentially the medium fosters more opportunity for "I have problems with these provisions" rather than the simple for or against astroturf you usually see from constituents.

      If, during the PATRIOT ACT runup, there had been tools for a couple thousand engaged folks to dissect the implications, you'd have had a stronger hand fighting for amendments.

      This is a test of the Emergency Free Speech System.
      This is only a test.
      If this had been an actual emergency, I'd already be locked up.

      by ben masel on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 12:00:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey Russ (none / 0)

      Lets do lunch or such next time you're in Madison. bmasel at tds dot net, or 442-8830. I don't really like momopolizing your time at public appearances.

      This is a test of the Emergency Free Speech System.
      This is only a test.
      If this had been an actual emergency, I'd already be locked up.

      by ben masel on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 12:15:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No like in kind (none / 1)

      With all due respect your analysis seems to lack an understanding of the fundamental nature of the internet, the differences between it and other media, and also suggests that you would have special rules for the internet that do not exist for other media.  Lastly you also skirt the implications of the differences in media and how the present FCC regulations have done more to create undue influence from special interests.

      1. Can you please tell us what you think a blog is.  And when you are done with that tell us what you think "all communications" on the internet are.  And then I would like to hear how you draw these distinctions.  The internet is a fluid media, it is hard to tell the difference between a news site and a blog and an email, and a posting to USENET or a P2P network.  It seems to me you are throwing around buzz words to make it sound like you are being thoughtful, and maybe you actually think you know what you are talking about, but I think this practice is actually inhibiting your ability to understand this thing the internet.  Kos has also expanded greatly on this lack of understanding so I will not go on for now.

      2. The Internet is not TV or Radio.  One is a fluid infinite mostly democratic medium.  The others are limited by the amount of public airwaves and cable infrastructure.  In this way it doesn't mean a thing if someone wants to spend billions on Internet Advertising.  There aren't just five channels with only 24hrs of broadcast time a day.  Its infinate and if people get tired of a site they go elsewhere.  On TV people can only watch whats on.  On the internet they can make their own site if they dont like whats on.  So lets let political parties put ten billion of advertising on the web.  Even if it popsup on a site we like we'll be blocking it anyway!  And the people will be able to publish their own high bandwidth materials.  The usual limits are not here.  

      I also want to ad that I think this concern seems totally nefarious.  As I have writen before, if you really are concerned about monpolization of media then you would be more focused on restoring the fair access regulations and the restrictions on media outlet ownership with in a market. Take a look at the influence of Sinclair Broadcasting, FOX NewsCorp, and Clear Cannel....how they have bought up local radio stations that had traditional offered a diversity of perspectives, and how now one single message is filtered down from on high, and the restict access to advertisers.  Why did the FCC not fine CBS for prohibiting MoveOn from running a political ad during the SuperBowl.  To busy scutinizing Janet Jackson's T&A routine me thinks. <snark> Until you are willing to take these on directly you should reserve your expressed interest in a level playing field for The Daily Show....you surely would get a laugh. </snark>  Sorry - this one I think is really serious and it pisses me off that this is being ignored.

      3. Kos has well addressed the fact that the rules that you are looking at putting in place, the disclosure rule is not required of other media.  So I will not dwell on it here other than to ask -   Why?  Why this special rule for cummincations on the internet?

      onnyturf.com - Political and Community Coverage of NYC

      by atomicBirdsong on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 02:00:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe I'm missing something (none / 0)

      but in all the excitement over Senator Feingold writing to us at dKos, aren't we forgetting that he's planning to screw us over S. 678. Feingold's reply reminds me of the phrase "with friends like these . . ."

      by YoGo on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 11:06:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The SEC will do whatever the fuck Rove wants it to (none / 0)

    I hope I'm wrong, but...

    Remember when the SEC got thousands of angry letters about the proposed further loosening of the media conglomeration rules, from everybody in America who wasn't named Rupert Murdoch?

    Remember Powell sitting on his fat sanctimonius ass, grinning and telling us we were all stupid fucks? Remember what they fucking DID?

    Prediction: We're not going to get anywhere NEAR that level of outrage about the blogs being regulated, and the media will be glad to pile on, since the blogs like Kos make them look like the shills they are.

    Don't shoot the messenger...

    "we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization" - Al Gore

    by racerx on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 11:07:54 AM PDT

  •  I am puzzled by (none / 0)

    the objection to mandatory disclosure by bloggers who are being paid by a candidate to blog on their behalf. (I'm not talking about advertising here - I'm talking about cash for posts.) How is that different from Armstrong Williams? Don't we all agree that what happened there was bad?

    Visit the Blue Mass. Group

    by david blue on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:02:57 PM PDT

    •  Yes, I know, (none / 0)

      A.W. took taxpayer money, so that's a difference. But even if the Bush machine rather than Dept of Education had paid him, it would still have been a bad thing, no?

      Visit the Blue Mass. Group

      by david blue on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:04:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it would have been bad (none / 0)

        But it also would have been disclosed by the campaign as part of its regular FEC disbursement filings.

        Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

        by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:48:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That doesn't do it for me. (none / 0)

          As someone noted earlier, that means going through mountains of paper. I just don't see what is so objectionable about saying that people who purport to be speaking more or less independently should have to say so when they aren't, at least when their non-independent speech is related to a federal election (in the FEC's lingo). They can still say anything they want - they just have to note that someone's paying them to do it. I just can't get too worked up about that.

          Visit the Blue Mass. Group

          by david blue on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:14:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand that point (none / 0)

            What I'd say primarily is that a blogger relies on his credibility for his audience, and if such payments aren't disclosed, when they're revealed (and to be sure, they will be) he'll lose all readers.

            Secondly, I'd rather this be fixed technologically -- make disbursement filings more frequent, and easily searchable electronically, and you solve the problem.  I think.

            Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

            by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:17:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fair enough, but -- (none / 0)

              if a blogger is really just a shill, then once the candidate is elected, the blogger's work is done and it doesn't really matter much if his or her credibility is gone. (What are the Thune bloggers doing now?) The tech fix would be a nice idea, but is there any likelihood of it happening soon? (I dunno - I'm askin'.)

              Visit the Blue Mass. Group

              by david blue on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 07:57:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But (none / 0)

                If a blogger has no credibility coming into the campaign, it's really hard to develop from scratch.  The Thune campaign might be a special case in that regard, where you had a speaker with credibility (as a lawyer/professor/etc) who was willing to do that as a one-time deal -- although, since then, he's now been hired as a staffer in his Senate office.

                Hmm.  The credibility thing is something I've been working through on my response to the regs, but your objection is a real one.

                Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

                by Adam B on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:13:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Permalink | 85 comments