Do you think it's nice that parties engage their supporters and fuel activism? Be careful of the CDT proposal (HR4900). Joseph Sandler, former staff counsel for the DNC, wrote in a legal listserv:
To make sure interested people have a complete view of the various alternatives here, it should be noted that, from the standpoint of the political party committees, HR 4900 is MUCH WORSE than the FEC's proposed regulations.
With respect to the ability of political party committees at all levels to use the Internet, the proposed FEC rules would NOT treat as "public communications" anything posted on a party's own website-only banner advertising and postings purchased on some other entity's website.
But the CDT proposal (HR 4900) would treat ALL political party internet communications as "public communications" -- greatly hurting if not killing the ability of state party committees, in particular, to use this critical tool for grass roots organizing. In other words, under this bill, if a state Democratic party merely runs a listing of its officeholders or candidates, or posts a greeting from a Member of Congress who is running for re-election, under this bill the state party would need to worry about worry what they're saying, what kind of money they're using, etc-a total nightmare-because everything, from dollar one, they say on the web would be automatically a "public communication" under HR 4900. Anything a party committee says on the internet that promotes, supports, attacks or opposes a federal candidate automatically becomes "federal election activity". Every state party would have to meticulously track what portion of the costs of their website would need to be tracked and reported as an in-kind contribution to federal candidates [...]
Further, a party committee's e-mails to its own supporters would now all be "public communications"-raising all of these same issues and complications.
As to national parties, the implication is that, under the coordination rules, anything they say on the web about any federal candidate would automatically count against coordinated expenditure limits - severely limiting the ability of national parties to use the Internet to discuss candidates, issues, etc even though they spend only 100% HARD MONEY.
From the standpoint of party committees, at least, to say that the CDT proposal/HR 4900 "expands free speech on the Internet" is nothing short of Orwellian. The bill would be a disaster, plain and simple.
There are lots of unintended (or perhaps intended) side-effects of the CDT proposal that haven't been hashed out. There is no reason why proponents shouldn't take the time to properly vet the bill, just as they demanded that HR 1606 be properly vetted.
Now HR 1606 has gone through the entire legislative process, with hearings, committee votes, and so on. It is ready for a vote. And suddenly, opponents pull out this new bill and demand a vote on this one instead? Hypocrites.
HR 1606 merely preserves the status quo, under which citizen media has flourished the past four years. The nightmare scenarios painted by the "reformer" groups have yet to pass, even though this law merely preserves the status quo.
And they refuse to say whether the CDT bill would protect what we're doing here at Daily Kos and other blogs. Why? Because their world precludes the possibility that people are too smart, or too engaged, or too principled to not be corrupted by their doomsday scenario -- the rise of the Halliblog -- a corporate funded blog. They think you are stupid and morally weak. And frankly, I'm tired of it.
A Rasmussen poll for the Center for Competitive Politics (a conservative outfit) found that while the public generally supports campaign finance reform, they oppose efforts to mess with the freedom of bloggers to unfettered political discussion online. From an email press release:
"Polls show that citizens do not favor those who support regulating bloggers or political commentary on the Internet," said Bradley A. Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and senior advisor to the Center for Competitive Politics ("CCP"). In four national opinion surveys of 500 likely voters each, conducted by Rasmussen Reports to test names for CCP on February 5, 2006, Rasmussen found that the favorability of an organization was determined in large measure by their position on regulating politics on the Internet.
"No matter which name we tested-be it 'Institute for the Deregulation of Political Speech' (sample A), 'Center for Competitive Politics' (sample B), 'Grassroots Alliance' (sample C), or 'Americans for Better Campaigns' (sample D)-the response to each name increased from an average of 20.5% favorable to 59.5% favorable when they learned that the organization carrying the name 'believed citizens should be free to write their own opinions about politics and elections on the Internet without government regulation,'" said Stephen M. Hoersting, executive director of CCP. "Correspondingly, an existing group's unfavorable rating jumped nearly 30 points, from an average of 15% to 42.5%, when citizens were asked to assume that group favored "regulation of commentary on the Internet," Hoersting said.
"What's remarkable is that we are finding these results among respondents who favor campaign finance reform generally. An average of 57.5% of respondents favor strict limits on how much an individual may contribute to a political campaign, and 78.25% believe the issue of campaign finance reform is very important or somewhat important in deciding how they will vote for Congress," said Smith. "But they don't want regulation of the Internet."
Absolutely. You can support strict limits in the flow of money into politics while realizing that citizen media should not be hampered by the heavy hand of governmental regulation.
Update: I've been terrible at remembering to add these action calls. If you believe in free, unfettered citizen media (and that's more than blogs -- it's wikis, google groups, podcasts, regular websites, message boards, and so on), please make some calls.
Update II: One more thought -- if the "reform" groups are so, so friendly to blogger rights and only have our best interests at heart, why haven't they gotten any real bloggers on their side?
Update III: It's been a day since Adam B asked the "reform" groups whether they would guarantee that they wouldn't go after Daily Kos if the CDT proposal passed. Still not a word. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Their silence speaks volumes. Any Democrat who votes against HR 1606 is sending a very clear message that they don't value the netroots because those "reformers" they are listening to sure as heck don't value it.
Furthermore, the FEC has delayed its vote on the new regulations until Congress decides on HR 1606. The message is clear -- either Congress protects this medium, or the FEC has no choice (under court order) but to being regulating it.