NationStates Jolt Archive


Why the FEC "Ruling" on the "Right to Blog" worries me.

Syniks
03-04-2006, 19:08
Really. Folks here have pointed out what a non-issue the potential effects of McCain-Feingold are because of the FEC "ruling". Yay for freedom. So why did they have to decide in the first place?

Here's a precient take.

You can now blog to your heart's content on the Internet. The Federal Election Commission says so. Yippee!

In a unanimous ruling, the FEC "gave" Internet bloggers the same "media exemption" from federal government regulation that newspapers enjoy. (You know, that "freedom of the press" loophole.) So, we can blog! We bloggers and little ol' net-surfers can write whatever we want to about politics and our generous leaders. Shout it from the rooftops of cyberspace!

And without being regulated by the government. We're not living in China, after all . . . where apparently the Chinese equivalent of the FEC went the other way.

One conservative blogger termed the FEC's decision "a tremendous win for speech." Liberal blogger Duncan Black posited that "This could have been an utter disaster, but it appears to have all worked out in the end." The Washington Post reported that any concerns we had for our freedoms, as the federal tribunal mulled over the fate of Internet speech, were "unfounded."

We are supposed to be very glad. Delighted. Tingly all over.

But don't be glad. Definitely don't tingle.

Why not? Because our rights — and let's agree that freedom of speech is a real biggie — come hard-wired. They're "inalienable," "endowed" to us by our "Creator," as the Declaration of Independence puts it.

Do you honor the FEC as your "Creator"?

Next thing you know, the Defense Department will announce, to much fanfare, that it won't be quartering soldiers in our homes. The courts will then declare that they're A-OK with continuing use of trial by jury.

Gee, thanks.

Congress Unbound.

Over the last three decades or so, the federal government has launched an enormously successful attack on political speech. It's in this context that the FEC's declaration that it shall not endeavor to regulate or control bloggers (for now) is greeted as a stupendous victory.

This story begins with Congress, that collective of gutless wonders whistling past the graveyard . . . where our liberties lie buried. Our bloggers' rights wouldn't have faced the FEC knife had Congress not passed legislation allowing itself to regulate political speech in complete contradiction to the Constitution. Cleverly, Congress assigned the dirty work over to the FEC, so those same politicians can decry any unpopular restriction as a rotten regulatory application of their sweet-smelling law.

Not that law matters to today's career politician. After all, they ignore the ultimate law regarding speech, the First Amendment. This most important chunk of our Constitution specifically denies to the Congress any lawmaking role that would "abridge" freedom of speech. Today, when most congressmen hear the word "abridge," they of course think of "nowhere" and some of the all-time great pork-barreling feats. But the word actually means that Congress cannot in any way diminish or lessen our rights to speak freely.

Thus, for Congress to create a complex regulatory system for political speech — as does the McCain-Feingold statute, as do all the other campaign finance laws going back to the aftermath of Watergate — isn't even a close call constitutionally. They can't do what they've done.

Speech Law: a Many-Tentacled Thing

The Court chose not merely to uphold McCain-Feingold, it went on to encourage incumbents in Congress — whenever they see a need (read: feel threatened) — to clamp down in new ways and on any new form of communication. The Court recognized that freedom of speech is hard to squash and asked Congress to be ever-vigilant.

Hence, had the FEC regulated bloggers, it would have been fully legal. At least, it would have been fine with our current parallel-universe judiciary.

So, what does this FEC decision really mean? Well, here you go: bloggers are more of a threat to incumbent Washington when regulated than when left alone.

The powers-that-be want apathy. They know there is no public support for FEC regulation of blogs, emails and links between websites. And they know that to attempt to regulate the Internet would illuminate just how far the federal government's anti-speech tentacles may reach.

Those federal tentacles have more reach when folks aren't paying attention.

Moreover, no matter how much bloggers may cause headaches for politicians, they don't move that many votes. Congress is not sufficiently scared of the blogosphere to take any serious risk. Certainly not when they are already hard at work trying to neuter 527s, which can and have moved votes in elections.

These 527s can accept unlimited contributions and in the last election cycle functioned much the same way that non-profit issue groups used to, before those groups were effectively put out of business by McCain-Feingold. The 527s on the left savaged Bush. Those on the right, such as Swift Boat Vets for Truth, savaged Kerry even more effectively.

Whether left, right, or in the middle, Americans were well-served to have the opportunity to hear these viewpoints, to weigh their arguments and to use the information in making political decisions. That's what freedom is all about.

Congress's desire, on the other hand, is to regulate, control, and suppress speech, especially speech apt to be used against the incumbents in Congress. Therefore, incumbent Washington is concentrating its fire on 527s. An elementary decision: silence the aerial bombardment before picking off individual foot-soldiers.

Yes, it is nice when the FEC allows some speech. But within the parameters set by Congress, I think we all know how this movie ends.

Of the FEC decision not to regulate the Internet, yes, it could have been far worse. When it comes to government, we know things can always get worse. That's why even a decent decision to permit certain speech in one particular forum provides no solace. It can't make up for the fact that our right to speak has been abridged, regulated away.

If for no other reason than their attack on Free Speech, Neither McCain nor Feingold should ever hold Public office again.
Corneliu
03-04-2006, 19:53
Really. Folks here have pointed out what a non-issue the potential effects of McCain-Feingold are because of the FEC "ruling". Yay for freedom. So why did they have to decide in the first place?

Here's a precient take.



If for no other reason than their attack on Free Speech, Neither McCain nor Feingold should ever hold Public office again.

I agree.
Turquoise Days
03-04-2006, 19:57
Really. Folks here have pointed out what a non-issue the potential effects of McCain-Feingold are because of the FEC "ruling". Yay for freedom. So why did they have to decide in the first place?

Here's a precient take.



If for no other reason than their attack on Free Speech, Neither McCain nor Feingold should ever hold Public office again.
Congratulations, the EPA had given you the right to breathe.
Syniks
03-04-2006, 20:52
Congratulations, the EPA had given you the right to breathe.
Except that the EPA regulations to minimize the effects of pollution are in no way comprable to muzzling free speech. :rolleyes:
Kecibukia
03-04-2006, 21:00
Except that the EPA regulations to minimize the effects of pollution are in no way comprable to muzzling free speech. :rolleyes:

Welcome to the joys of the "Living Document" in comparison the Original Intent.

Alledgedly, they're working on reigning in the 527's. I'll believe it when it happens.
Turquoise Days
03-04-2006, 21:11
Except that the EPA regulations to minimize the effects of pollution are in no way comprable to muzzling free speech. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I know. I was trying to make the point that saying they will not resrict free speech is the same as...
ah nevermind, I've just confused myself now.
Vetalia
03-04-2006, 21:15
That's one of many reasons why I hope Russel Feingold never becomes president. I'd rather have Hillary Clinton in office than him...
Eutrusca
03-04-2006, 21:17
Really. Folks here have pointed out what a non-issue the potential effects of McCain-Feingold are because of the FEC "ruling". Yay for freedom. So why did they have to decide in the first place?

If for no other reason than their attack on Free Speech, Neither McCain nor Feingold should ever hold Public office again.
Uh ... to head off future efforts to curb the freedom to blog? Ya think??? :p
Saladador
03-04-2006, 21:18
I want to post a selected argument that upheld regulating TV and Radio ads, and expose just how paper-thin the logic of the courts is sometimes.

Plaintiffs chal-lenge BCRA's restrictions on electioneering communications on the premise that they should be permitted to spend corporate and labor union general treasury funds in the sixty days before the federal elections on broadcast advertisements, which refer to federal candidates, because speech needs to be 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.' McConnell Br. at 44 (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964)). Curiously, Plaintiffs want to preserve the ability to run these advertisements while hiding behind dubious and misleading names like: 'The Coalition-Americans Working for Real Change' (funded by business organizations opposed to organized labor), 'Citizens for Better Medicare' (funded by the pharmaceutical industry), 'Republicans for Clean Air' (funded by brothers Charles and Sam Wyly). Findings ¶ ;¶ ;44, 51, 52. Given these tactics, Plaintiffs never satisfactorily answer the question of how 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' speech can occur when organizations hide themselves from the scrutiny of the voting public.

This logic is an ad hominem, a straw man, and a hasty generalization rolled into one. Ad hominem, because the fact that these people may hide behind dubious names does not mean that their own rights should be compormised. A hasty generalization, because for every organization that "hides behind a dubious name" (whatever the hell that means) there are fifty with names like RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).That's pretty clear about who they represent, yet they have to abide by the rule the same as these organizations. A straw man, because the law has nothing to do with controlling dubious names of political organizations. The congress could have passed a law prohibiting such things, and the argument might be useful for upholding those laws. This has to do with actually telling corporations and labor unions that they cannot post ads at all withing a specified time frame, no matter how open they are.

Honestly, though, the most culpable person in the McCain-Feingold debacle was Bush. There's nothing like a president who violates his oath of office and signs a law he himself believes is unconstitutional (that goes for any President, any issue).
Free Mercantile States
03-04-2006, 21:31
That's one of many reasons why I hope Russel Feingold never becomes president. I'd rather have Hillary Clinton in office than him...

I liked him...until I found out about the economic protectionism. And then the McCain-Feingold Act, which I admired because I can't stand special interest corruption, turns out to be a thinly disguised censorship enabler. Damn. We SERIOUSLY need a multiparty system - all the politicians suck ass.
Syniks
03-04-2006, 21:34
Honestly, though, the most culpable person in the McCain-Feingold debacle was Bush. There's nothing like a president who violates his oath of office and signs a law he himself believes is unconstitutional (that goes for any President, any issue).
Have to agree there. The buck stops here and all that. He absolutely should have Vetoed it and forced the COngress to violate the Constitution even more baldly.
Kinda Sensible people
03-04-2006, 21:51
That's one of many reasons why I hope Russel Feingold never becomes president. I'd rather have Hillary Clinton in office than him...

No you don't... Hillary is a facist in her own ways. Feingold may be a politician, but he's got nothng on Clinton's Thompsonism.

I will, however, point out that these are politicians, and that none of them can be trusted as far as we can throw their collective asses (prefferably into international wates) to do the right thing, should it be contrary to their continued public employment.

That said, Feingold is head and shoulders better than his cowardly bretheren in the Congress.
Bourgyina
03-04-2006, 22:34
Good blog, I happen to agree with his(the writer) interpretation however I dont see Mrs. Clinton as a facist or anytype of ideological player, from what I see, shes nothing but a politican playing the same games every incumbent plays to get his seat again or go a little bit further. She's been on the board of Wallmart and acts like shes a leftward powerhouse, sent to free the workers of the world. She just doesn't add up, lately you see her kissing up to the conservative groups, shes just a politican just as bad as her husband. "where did hilary meet bill?" "They were dating the same women..." sorry had to share.