Well, this morning, I put on my robe and slippers and e-walked out to my e-mailbox to see if anything had arrived. And lo! A letter from my congresswoman, Gwen Moore (D-WI, representing WI-04; "the fightin' Fourth!"), sat awaiting. It was her response to my contacting of her regarding that crazy bill and the shifty circumstances under which it was considered and, ultimately, rejected.
I figured that, what with the FEC set to vote on this issue very soon, it wouldn't hurt to revisit the topic a little.
Here's what Gwen Moore had to say:
=
Thank you for contacting me to ask about my vote on H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act. I'm sorry about the delay in responding to your question. I appreciate hearing from you and wanted to respond to your inquiry.
In 2002, Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). This statute made significant changes to campaign financing laws including higher contribution limits and a ban on the raising of soft money by political parties and federal candidates. It also amended the term "federal election activity" to include a "public communication," i.e., a broadcast, cable, satellite, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank communication made to the general public, "or any other form of general public political advertising."
In October 2002, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) promulgated regulations exempting Internet communications from its definition of "public communication." These regulations were later overturned in court, which held that excluding all Internet communications from the definition of "public communication" was inconsistent with Congress's intent in the BCRA.
As you know, H.R. 1606 would exempt the Internet from being considered as a form of public communication that could be regulated by the FEC. The House considered the bill under special Suspension of the Rules procedures normally reserved for noncontroversial legislation and which require the support of two thirds of those voting for passage. This procedure limits debate and prevents any amendments from being offered. This was not the way that such an important issue should have been considered. And party as a result of that heavy handed treatment by the House leadership, while the bill received a majority vote, it failed to receive the two-thirds majority required for passage.
Some, like yourself, have argued that this bill is needed because FEC regulation could suppress free _expression that has made the Internet so popular. They expressed concerns that internet tools such as political blogs could be unfairly restricted if regulation of the internet is allowed. However, others had concerns that the bill's exemption was so broad that it would fundamentally undermine our current campaign financing laws by creating a new stream for unregulated campaign contributions.
I understand that the Internet is a wonderful tool for political activity and that it has allowed the political engagement of many Americans who may have otherwise not taken part. As a Member of Congress, I receive hundreds of emails weekly from constituents on important issues who probably would not have taken the time to write and send a letter. Its accessibility and generally low cost are invigorating to the body politic.
I believe that both sides of this debate share many of the same concerns, namely ensuring that campaign activity is legitimately regulated while free speech is not unnecessarily hindered. No one on either side of the debate wants to shut down bloggers. The concern is whether a blanket Internet exemption would allow labor unions, major corporations, and other entities to fund unregulated and unlimited campaign activities which would be regulated if they were in any other venue.
Only three years ago, Congress made clear its intention to close campaign finance loopholes. We need to be careful that we do not enact legislation opening new ones. Again, during debate on this bill, we did not have the opportunity to debate amendments to this bill or to even consider the compromise bill you mentioned, H.R. 4194. Given what I considered legitimate concerns about the unintended effects of enacting a blanket exemption and the lack of ability to fix such concerns by amendment on the floor, the only option available to me was to vote against this bill.
Sponsors of H.R. 1606 have made clear their intention to bring the bill back to the floor under normal procedures that would hopefully allow amendments to be offered to address these concerns.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Gwen Moore
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
=
Has anybody gotten around to bringing back HR 1606, or alternately, what about that compromise bill? I can't recall reading about a single member of the house doing so.
Well, they should. Then again, it's almost too late, isn't it?