Will the FEC shut down Speakers Corner?

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

FEC May Regulate Web Political Activity
By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - With political fund raising, campaign advertising and organizing taking place in full swing over the Internet, it may just be a matter of time before the Federal Election Commission joins the action. Well, that time may be now.
A recent federal court ruling says the FEC must extend some of the nation's new campaign finance and spending limits to political activity on the Internet.

Long reluctant to step into online political activity, the agency is considering whether to appeal.

But vice chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said the Internet may prove to be an unavoidable area for the six-member commission, regardless of what happens with the ruling.

"I don't think anybody here wants to impede the free flow of information over the Internet," Weintraub said. "The question then is, where do you draw the line?"

This election season has been a groundbreaking one online, as interest groups, campaigns and political parties use Web sites and e-mail to advertise, organize volunteers, reach out to donors and collect information about voters.

Former Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean made the most pronounced splash online when he stunned his rivals by raking in tens of millions of dollars through Web-a-thons, a far cheaper fund-raising method than traditional dinners and cocktail parties. And Internet message boards, known as blogs, have become as common a place for people to air their political views as talk shows and newspaper editorial pages.

The Internet also is where political players do what they can no longer do on television or radio.

The National Rifle Association, for example, has started an online newscast and talk show to air its views on presidential and congressional candidates. The Internet is exempt from a ban on the use of corporate money for radio and TV ads targeting federal candidates close to elections, part of the new campaign finance law that took effect this election cycle.

The November Fund, an anti-trial lawyer group partly funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is posting Internet ads criticizing Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards , a North Carolina senator and former personal-injury lawyer.

The FEC exempted such ads from the law's ban on coordination between candidates and groups that raise or spend corporate money. Last month, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly struck down the coordination exemption, ruling that it "severely undermines" the law.

Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign watchdog group Democracy 21 and member of the legal team that successfully sued to overturn that and several other FEC rules interpreting the law, said campaign finance laws should apply to the Internet because substantial amounts of money are being spent on online at election time.

The laws may not always apply to the Internet as they would to other venues, Wertheimer said, "but by the same token the Internet cannot become a major avenue for evading and circumventing campaign finance laws on the grounds that people just want the Internet free from regulation of any kind."

Max Fose, a Republican Internet consultant who helped Arizona Sen. John McCain , a sponsor of the new campaign finance law, raise millions of dollars online for his 2000 presidential bid, is wary of the judge's ruling.

"Whenever there's something new and emerging and it's still developing, to place restrictions on it I think is going to hurt how political candidates and elected officials look to use the Internet, to not only be elected but look to get voters involved," Fose said.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

Will the FEC shut down Speakers Corner?

Of course not. That's absurd.

Forty-two

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Will the FEC shut down Speakers Corner?

Of course not. That's absurd.

Please see:
facetious.
fa·ce·tious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-sshs)
adj. Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[gemini 0]

Just shows you how much some judges really know about things. He wants the FCC to regulate all incoming data streams from outside the US? Some countries have tried that for years without success.

You would almost have to sever all internet connections including cable and satellite to entirely stop the data flow.

Blue skies,

Jim

[narcimund 0]

It's interesting in a way. It brings to mind some disturbing possibilities.

What if, for instance, the parties and/or candidates hired people to impersonate members of a community then post incessently on large online forums in support of the candidate? They could use all manner of techniques and would not be responsible for any of the legal standards of other political communications.

I can imagine that would be quite effective. And if it's effective, you can bet someone's going to do it. Or already has.

Purely hypothetical, of course.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[wmw999 2,589]

In that case, I'm really glad Sangiro split it up into SC and Bonfire then. Because the numbers here in SC just aren't worth that kind of chicanery (and even if the parties don't do it, never underestimate the power of individual thinking).

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[markd_nscr986 0]

Damn......I was hoping you wouldn't notice!

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[PhillyKev 0]

Errr...ummm, I need to go over here now.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Will the FEC shut down Speakers Corner?

Of course not. That's absurd.

No more absurd than the Supremes finding McCain-Feingold a constitutional abridgment of the 1st Amendment.

[jimbarry 0]

Heh. More wheel spinnin' and tax money wastin' for the american gov't trying to regulate something that isn't american. I wish each time some idea about controlling the internet pops into some politician's head, they'd stop to remember what the first two w's in "www" stand for.

Move the server/app/db outside the border, and bam, millions spent writing laws rendered useless. Can you hear the tax toilet flushing? I can.

As for Speakers Corner, it's fair and balanced. For every Ron there's a PhillyKev, and so on, and so on...

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The Internet also is where political players do what they can no longer do on television or radio.

The National Rifle Association, for example, has started an online newscast and talk show to air its views on presidential and congressional candidates. The Internet is exempt from a ban on the use of corporate money for radio and TV ads targeting federal candidates close to elections, part of the new campaign finance law that took effect this election cycle.

I include the Associated Press along with the other "news" organizations and corporations that exhibit "liberal bias."

NOTE how this article cites the NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION as an example of that nasty freedom that's somehow escaped the tyrannical control of the government. That's deliberate. They specifically chose that example for their article. And I believe it's designed to get people to think (a) that the NRA is manipulating and skirting the campaign laws (like the gun makers were "skirting" the assault weapons ban by making guns that complied with it) and (b) the law has to DO something about this rampant, unbridled example of freedom of expression without oversight by government. The article uses an easily maligned, misrepresented, and misunderstood organization (NRA) to accomplish the goal of getting people stirred up about the organizations "skirting" the campaign ad laws. It plants the seed of the image of the sinister NRA doing this -- and is careful NOT to plant a seed of imagining a helpful, sweet, benign organization like the ACLU doing the same -- even though it does.

Notice that there are very likely dozens, perhaps hundreds of other organizations, that are doing what NRA is doing. Remember that the ACLU is subject to the McCain-Feingold restrictions on free speech the same way the NRA is, but the ACLU is not the organization used in the example -- and a discerning reader should want to know why.

This is but one example of the subtle lies of omission/inclusion that liberal media outlets employ in order to manipulate public perception and sentiment.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I include the Associated Press along with the other "news" organizations and corporations that exhibit "liberal bias."

NOTE how this article cites the NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION as an example of that nasty freedom that's somehow escaped the tyrannical control of the government.

See, this is where bias comes in. Personally I saw it showing what rights an organization has currently and how they are excercising them. This artilcle points out that sort of OpEd piece would be gone if the the FEC was involved. I did not see it as anti-NRA.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Will the FEC shut down Speakers Corner?

Of course not. That's absurd.

No more absurd than the Supremes finding McCain-Feingold a constitutional abridgment of the 1st Amendment.

I take it you think it's not?

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

See, this is where bias comes in. Personally I saw it showing what rights an organization has currently and how they are excercising them. This artilcle points out that sort of OpEd piece would be gone if the the FEC was involved. I did not see it as anti-NRA.

I did. Granted, it's not vehemently anti-NRA, but it chose to use the NRA as the example of groups or organizations "getting around" the law. JUST like the same liberal press harped on the false notion that compliance with the "Assault Weapons Ban" by NOT making guns that had the prohibited accessories was "exploiting a loophole."

Here again, they are pointing to gun-people "exploiting a loophole." Why not use any other organization? Will they claim that this should be flattering, somehow, to the NRA, because it indicates how high-profile they are, how noticeable? I don't think so. They are implying a negative connotation to using the internet to avoid the broadcast restrictions of the McCain Feingold act which "everyone knows" is noble, right? and the example they use just happens to be the NRA doing the ignoble end-run around the details of the so-called reform law.

You can say you don't see the big elephant in the middle of the room, but it sure is there.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"