A bill to keep the internet free.

[David S]

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
H.R. 1606 would exempt communications made over the Internet from the definition of a `public communication' in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (`BCRA') (Public Law 107-155). The purpose of this legislation is to ensure the Internet can continue to grow and continue to be a free and positive force in our political system. H.R. 1606 would allow bloggers and other online activists to express their view on the Internet without having to fear they might run afoul of our campaign finance laws.

If you support this bill you can tell your congress-beings (i.e. congressmen, congresswomen, representatives, Senators, etc) at;
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=22

[David S]

Horrible bill.  Unpaid volunteer bloggers don't fall afoul of the campaign  finance laws now.  All this does is enable paid-for internet activity to be unregulated by the campaign finance laws, and while I think those laws need to be severely reformed so as to require greater transparency and less limits on where money comes from, carving out yet another special exemption for the Internet is ludicrous.

No one should be regulated by the campaign finance reform laws.
BTW since the BCRA passed the spending on campaigns is higher than ever.

[David S]

Ideally there should be no limits on what you spend, but you should have to tell where you got the money.  However, my primary objection is that it special cases one particular form of political speech, and even worse, removes any requirements of transparency that exist on it now.  Do you really want thousands of anonymous supposedly independent attack websites showing up on the Internet in 2008?  That's what this bill will do, turn the Internet into a political cesspool into which all the money that people would rather spend otherwise on political speech will pour it into, and with no ability to trace the poisons that will be let loose to their sources.  This bill will effectively kill amateur political blogging, because there will no way to distinguish the amateurs from the pros, so none of them will be trusted.

I'm all for removing the limits on campaign spending, but doing it in this one limited area creates more problems than it solves.

Are you saying that free speech on the internet should be sacrificed so that it will be just as restricted as other media?

[David S]

I would have to oppose this bill.  Official communication made by/on behalf of the candidate online should fall under the same requirements as the rest of the media.  This isn't a free speech issue, but rather another ploy to get around the campaign election laws.

What part of the campaign election laws are you talking about?

Further, what's so bad about defending free speech wherever and whenever we can?

[David S]

This bill is intended to protect the internet against some of the restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. The BCRA is over 500 pages long in pdf format and much of it is written in legalese. Have any of you actually  read and understood the entire thing?  If you have trouble understanding it, its because it was intentionally made long and confusing for the exact purpose of making it confusing. Bear in mind that the entire US constitution including all amendments and the declaration of independence fits into a pocket sized booklet less than 60 pages long.

At the very least, BCRA puts some restrictions on mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election.

527 organizations however, are exempted from many of the provisions of BCRA. (Remember the "Swift Boats". ) These are big money organizations and apparently they are still free to engage in mudslinging.

The internet is a poor man's communication tool. Even someone of modest means can create a website that potentially reaches millions of readers. Why can't they have the same exemptions the 527s get?

[David S]

An update from the Liberty Committee:

March 15, 2006


The elites have become afraid of you.  Whether they are in Washington, Moscow, Beijing, Paris or Sydney, the political and media elites are afraid you will eventually know too much and say too much.  Which is why they are determined to control the Internet in whatever ways they can.

Tomorrow afternoon, the U.S. House will vote on the Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606).  We strongly urge a "yes" vote, as do organizations such as Gun Owners of America, National Taxpayers Union, National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council, National Rifle Association, and American Conservative Union.

H.R. 1606 is needed because federal courts have ordered the Federal Election Commission to regulate "electioneering communications" on the Internet because of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain-Feingold). If H.R. 1606 fails to become law, your Web site or blog could be shut down for the 30 days prior to a primary election and the 60 days prior to a general election should you express "electioneering communications."  And any political e-mail you send during those times supporting or denouncing a candidate could also be disallowed.

So, grass-roots political activism will be silenced.  But the media elite, such as the New York Times, won't be muzzled because they are exempt as members of the "official press."  They will be allowed to continue writing editorials about various candidates, but you won't have approval from the State to say a word.

By the way, The New York Times has an editorial today urging a "no" vote on H.R. 1606.

The vote will be held tomorrow afternoon.  Please urge your U.S. representative to vote "yes" on H.R. 1606.

To send your message, go to
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/?alertid=8585676&type=CO

Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee

[David S]

All newspapers including the New York Times are exempt from the BCRA. The Times doesn't mind inflicting BCRA on others, so long as it does not affect them.


Modu and Earnest you still haven't mentioned whether or not you have actually read and understood the BCRA.

What do you think BCRA is intended to do?

Lastly, is is your intent to muzzle the NRA, Taxpayers Union and the 80 other organizations that joined in the lawsuit against BCRA?

[David S]

NRA is funded by 3 million members and advertisers. You want a list of all of them?

By the way, how do you know where the New York Times gets its funding from? Just like the NRA it has subscribers and advertisers who provide funds.

BWT2 are you a politician?

[David S]

I mentioned mudslinging to point out that that BCRA did not stop it nor did it prevent the big money spending by special interests. In my opinion it was not intended to stop either.

As a little aside when it comes to mudslinging the two primary parties did much more of it during the 04 presidential campaign than the 3rd party candidates. If you watched Bush and Kerry debate you saw two men attacking each other. If you watched the Libertarian and Green party debate, you saw two men debate the issues, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing, but always respectful of each other and never throwing mud.