« Harbingers of Doom Results | Main | KerryWatch®: Repeal That Troublesome First Amendment »
March 12, 2005
Bloggers Online Letter To The FEC: Some Thoughts
Because I've been taking it easy this week, I'm a bit late to the slugfest over the FEC's regulation of blogging. My initial take on the matter, without having read up on it, was that at the end of the day the FEC would be crazy to try and squelch individual bloggers. FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub agrees, commenting that the parties are advised to chill:
Reports of a Federal Election Commission plot to "crack down" on blogging and e-mail are wildly exaggerated.First of all, we're not the speech police. We don't tell private citizens what they can or cannot say, on the Internet or anywhere else. The FEC regulates campaign finance. There's got to be some money involved, or it's out of our jurisdiction.
Second, let's get the facts straight. Congress, in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, limited how one can pay for communications that are coordinated with political campaigns, including any form of "general public political advertising."
At issue specifically were links to a candidate's web site, reproduction of campaign text, or forwarding of same to a blog's mailing list. I would probably add a third and even a fourth category: ads or fundraising drives designed to benefit a political campaign directly or indirectly, and possibly even the new technique of blogswarms designed to "bring down" candidates where money is offered as a "reward" for information.
And this is the problem with the blurring of lines between politics, business, and personal blogging. One of the reasons I don't have a PayPal button on VC is simply this: as long as I don't take one red cent from anyone, I can tell anyone to go take a jump in the lake.
Of course, I can also take your money and tell you to take a flying leap. And I suppose Kos can take the Kerry campaign's money and continue to write completely unbiased posts. Hey... it could happen. The difference is the perception of bias. Once money is introduced into blogging, whether or not any actual change in editorial content occurs, the blogger has left him or herself open to accusations of "selling out" or partisanship, whether founded or unfounded.
And unfortunately, those bloggers who establish pecuniary ties to political campaigns or sponsor paid campaign ads on their sites have left the back door open to regulation by McCain-Feingold, Ms. Weintraub's assurances notwithstanding. For who could argue that blogs were not used to great effect by both campaigns in the last election?
No one, I think, wants to regulate grassroots speech: the individual blogger expressing his or her opinion.
And I've always maintained the McCain-Feingold is bad law - it contained numerous loopholes, notably in the area of 527s, which were exploited to great effect by the DNC in the last election. But if we are honest, we must admit that the same types of abuses that occurred with 527s can easily occur with blogs. Howard Dean's campaign was extemely Net-savvy. He leveraged the power of the Internet to raise money and mobilize millions of Americans 'on the cheap'. That undoubtedly represented a huge financial benefit to his campaign.
All of this presents an opportunity for some serious soul-searching on the part of bloggers: if we wish to be viewed as "a grassroots activity", then perhaps we should act like a grassroots activity. Alternatively, if we want to be extended the same privileges as the mainstream media, then perhaps we ought to accept some standards as the price of admission.
The 'Net is a wild and woolly place. Any call for voluntary standards is generally greeted with hoots of derision and outraged snorts of "You can't tell ME what to do!". But it seems to me that we cannot have our cake and eat it too. This is what instinctively bothered me about the Kos/Armstrong brouhaha: the feeling that the other shoe was about to drop. Because no matter what anyone says, money changes everything. Which is not an argument not to mix business and blogging, or even, perhaps, to mix politics and blogging. These are matters for the individual blogger to weigh and wrestle with. I do think I would like to see some statement of standards to be adopted on a voluntary basis - perhaps one already exists. Because these are complex matters, and it is not always easy to weigh all the considerations alone.
Whatever individuals may decide, they need to be very clear about exactly what they are doing, and the tradeoffs involved. Ethics and integrity still matter, or they should.
Which leads me to La Shawn Barber and the bipartisan Online Coalition’s petition letter to Federal Election Commission Chairman Scott E. Thomas, which I have signed. Although I do believe that, in the end, this will come to nothing, I also think it's just as well to keep up the pressure - not to leave the outcome to chance.
If, after reading this, you also feel so inclined, I hope you will add your signatures to the petition. Despite my recent frustrations, I continue to be madly, passionately, in love with blogging - with this revolutionary experiment in town square debate and democracy. It has added so much to American political life that it would be truly tragic if it were to go away. Last year, I opined that blogging has revitalized democracy. Better than anything else I have written, this post still represents my thoughts on the subject.
UPDATE: This Reason magazine piece may also be of interest.
Posted by Cassandra at March 12, 2005 08:10 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/433
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bloggers Online Letter To The FEC: Some Thoughts:
» Bloggers United Against the FEC - Online Coalition from La Shawn Barber's Corner
Whether you blog or not, please sign the bipartisan Online Coalition's petition letter to Federal Election Commission Chairman Scott E. Thomas.
For background information on this issue, see this post from last week, Liberal and Conservative Blogger... [Read More]
Tracked on March 12, 2005 11:17 AM
» If you have a blog, You should read this... from Righty in a Lefty State
If you run a blog, and link to an item on a political candidate's web site, should that be considered a 'political contribution'? [Read More]
Tracked on March 14, 2005 12:51 AM
Comments
Cass ... I almost forgot how articulate and thoughtful you are. Excellent analysis ... far better then the 'if I yell louder then you, I win the point' kinds of discussions I find myself in.
Oh ya ... first! ;-)
Posted by: Frodo at March 12, 2005 09:45 AM
Yeah, well, except for the idiotic typos in my posts. But thank you Frodo.
Posted by: Cassandra at March 12, 2005 10:04 AM
Nice summation on the issue. Thanks.
Posted by: Jim R at March 12, 2005 10:21 AM
Very cogent discussion. This First Amendment stuff gets tricky when you factor in truly obnoxious speech. Or blatant indecency. But I agree that the best defense of the truth is an open marketplace of ideas. When anyone suppresses an idea they don't like, it is usually because that idea has a greater preponderence of evidence to support it. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Pat'sRick© at March 13, 2005 09:49 PM
This is great stuff, Cass - you have a wonderful way of digging down in an argument. I also have signed the petition, and I hope that your analysis on the outcome is right on.
Posted by: Barb at March 14, 2005 12:48 AM