Skip to main content

View Diary: FEC Regulating Political Blogs? GOP Commissioners Want To (205 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Get a Clue Please (none)
    Its not that this isn't a serious issue, its that you are being ridiculously naive in a way that is not typical for Daily Kos.

    The Judge ordered that web ads be treated like ads in other media. A blog whose sole purpose is evidently to advocate for a candidate would probably also fall under some limitation on independent expenditure. Anything beyond that is probably unConstitutional.

    The Dems want the ad limits extended to the web, the Republicans don't.

    We will see the Dems pushing for limited regulation that stops blatant large expenditures on behalf of candidates.

    The Repubs want no limits at all. Therefore they will offer regulations which impose draconian limits on free speech which are either not Constitutional or piss off so many people that the law gets changed.

    They must AGREE on something though or the court will force action, so most likely the Democratic version will pass, or the matter will reach an impass and the Court will order a solution probably after considering argument from the stalemated Commissioners.

    NO ONE wants to enact burdensome regulations on sites like Daily Kos. The Republicans are offering that as a bogeyman to try and stop all regulation.

    It is certainly possible that this Kabuki drama will generate regulations that are a real burden on Bloggers as the Dems and Reps on the FEC play chicken against a court imposed deadline so we need to be involved.

    BUT unless you support the Republican view that there should be no limits on spending we need to understand the game they are playing and work constructively to make sure that something workable and Constitutional finally emerges.

    •  wrong (none)
      Paid advertising on web is already covered by FEC. This is about in-kind and coordinated expenditures. The opinion is NOT limited to paid advertising.
      •  Candidate advertising is "regulated" (none)
        In the sense that all direct campaign expenditures are regulated. This is about third party advertising which looks just like print or TV where it is restricted but happens to be on the web - read the opinion, not the Republican spin.
        •  Ok (none)
          then respond to Smith, "She orders us to regulate the Internet, again what I point out is -- it is in no way limited to paid advertising. In fact, it would be contrary to the tone of the opinions limited only to paid advertising. In another part of the opinion, she struck down one of our regulations where we exempted unpaid advertising. So, I, you know, this was, it's - it's in no ways limited to unpaid advertising."
          •  As I read the opinion (none)
            She recognizes that the Internet offers lots of unique challenges, then specifically speaks to advertising which she notes realy isn't much different from other media and says OK, at least do this much.

            The Democrats want sensible rules that as much as possible keep big money out of the game. The Republicans don't. The Dems try and work out a deal which can draw at least some Republican support and pass Constitutional test. The Republicans try and break the deal by adding stuff that people don't want or that won't pass the courts. That's their strategy either nothing or too much. I don't think they really worry much about too much but sometimes when you play chicken you go off the cliff. From what I've seen lately the Republicans don't mind going off a few cliffs.

    •  Pfft (none)
      You contradict yourself in your last sentence.  Face it, you overstated your case few days ago and I had it right all along. Something to watch closely.

      You are not the best crow eater I've seen.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 10:58:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who should eat crow? (none)
        Do you disagree with my assessment?

        I reacted to all the "Republicans are the good guys" stuff the other day, because it was just wrong, and misses all the maneuvering going on here. Now that the Republicans are the bad guys I feel a little better, but you still haven't made clear what is going on in the main diary.

        There are a hundred comments talking about some sort of DC Dem plot to shut up the Dean web team. You know that is crap.

        By the way you have now posted this twice on the main page, and I gather you are a lawyer- I'll ask again, have you read the judge's opinion? I have, and it sure sounds like she specifically limited her comment on the Internet to advertising, but I'm an economist not an attorney. My big beef is that there is so much heat and so little light on this subject, especially anger directed at Dems on the FEC and one of our most Progressive senators and that is just what the Republicans want. If we can be manipulated so easily on a subject we should be personally familiar with, what are the chances for reality based politics in the broader electorate?

    •  Eco: (none)
      " NO ONE wants to enact burdensome regulations on sites like Daily Kos."

      Dkos is more vulnerable than 99.999% of blogs, both because of bandwidth expenditures, ad because Markos has tagged it as explicitly a "Democratic Party Blog."

      The Republican Party: We get government off your back, and drop it on your head.

      by ben masel on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 01:02:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site