Two items:
- New proposed Texas journalist shield legislation will not protect most bloggers -- instead, it defines "journalist" as:
"Journalist" means a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in gathering, compiling, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, investigating, processing or publishing news or information in a tangible form that is distributed or intended to be distributed to a group of people by any news medium or through any communication service provider. This includes anyone who supervises or assists the journalist in gathering, preparing, or dissemination of news or information.
- Sshh! for now, but they're trying to regulate the political interwebs again. Reps. Price (D-NC) and Castle (R-DE) have introduced the "Responsible Campaign Communications Act of 2007" that would apply the "stand by your ad" requirements of McCain Feingold to the start of automated phone calls, but also, okay....:
SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR AUDIO AND VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS TO AUDIO AND VIDEO PORTIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMITTED THROUGH INTERNET OR ELECTRONIC MAIL.
(a) Communications by Candidates or Authorized Persons- Section 318(d)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441d(d)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(C) AUDIO AND VIDEO PORTIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMITTED THROUGH INTERNET OR ELECTRONIC MAIL- In the case of a communication described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) which is transmitted through the Internet or through any form of electronic mail--
`(i) any audio portion of the communication shall meet the requirements applicable under subparagraph (A) to communications transmitted through radio; and
`(ii) any video portion of the communication shall meet the requirements applicable under subparagraph (B) to communications transmitted through television.'.
(b) Communications by Others- Section 318(d)(2) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441d(d)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `In the case of a communication described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a) which is transmitted through the Internet or through any form of electronic mail, any audio portion of the communication shall meet the requirements applicable under this paragraph to communications transmitted through radio and any video portion of the communication shall meet the requirements applicable under this paragraph to communications transmitted through television.'....
SEC. 4. NO EXPANSION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENTS ON INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act may be construed to require any person who is not required under section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as provided under section 110.11 of title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations) to include a disclaimer on communications made by the person through the Internet to include any disclaimer on any such communications.
I know what you're thinking: Adam, that's completely self-explanatory! Go home!
Okay, here's what I think it means: currently, campaign finance law on the Internets generally only applies to communications placed for a fee on someone else's site -- i.e., ads. If a campaign spends money on a blogad, you now see a disclaimer with it. So, the question is what happens with something like YouTube, where a campaign can distribute a communication online for free. This bill would force the same "I'm Ned Lamont, and I approve this ad (and so do we!)" disclaimer into all online audio or video ads, regardless of whether a fee is paid to place them.
The question is what else the bill does, between Sections 2(b) and 4, in terms of voluntary activity by bloggers to create videos -- because Section 441d(a)(3) referred to in section 2 states that an advertisement "not authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state the name and permanent street address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication and state that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee."
It may well be that between that and the clear exemption under Section 4, pro-candidate videos you voluntarily place on YouTube are exempt. The question is whether this is necessary in the first place. Stay tuned.