The recap:
We lobbied;
a flimsy subsitute was introduced at the last minute;
Congress voted;
we lost 225-182 (two-thirds was need);
Reps. Pelosi and Waxman explained their opposition, but
Markos isn't buying it.
Here's what happens now: H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act, is not dead. It can still be brought up under normal House rules and approved by a majority of the House -- and, based on yesterday's vote, a majority does support the bill.
Our Democratic allies have generally raised two objections to H.R. 1606, one procedural and one substantive.
Procedural: Rep. Barney Frank noted the irony that a bill meant to open debate on the Internet shouldn't have been brought up under rules (the suspension calendar) which limited debate to 20 frenetic minutes per side yesterday. My understanding is that the Suspension Calendar is used for bills perceived to be uncontroversial, and it was a Democrat's idea (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Silicon Valley) to do so.
If the sole objection was debate time; that's one thing. If it was based on a desire to destroy the bill through amendments, however, that's bad.
Substantive: The basic objection to H.R. 1606 is that it provides an evil loophole for soft money to infiltrate politics. I have outlined the argument against that here and here. In short, this bipartisan bill (Sen. Reid introduced it in his chamber) is not some boogeyman dressed in net-savvy clothing.
Instead, what's going on here is that there's a certain wing of both parties (mostly ours) that believes that regulation is the way to stem campaign finance abuses. And it generally is. Just not here. As we explained to the FEC and I think most here just understand intrinsically, such factors as low cost of entry, ease of use and infinite bandwidth make this a place in which aggregated sums of wealth cannot distort the speech market.
Still, I personally (and I don't think Markos either) would not object to efforts to close the soft-money loophole alone. Unfortunately, neither the Shays-Meehan bill nor the FEC proceedings will do that. Instead, by proposing a bill that would protect incorporated bloggers with a "principal purpose" of doing a "web log" on the one hand, while its supporters argue in other forums that this site's "principal purpose" is not blogging, it is they who offer the regulatory wolf in sheep's clothing by not providing any meaningful protection to many forms of online news, commentary, organizing and advocacy.
True protection for bloggers, podcasters, wiki-ists and others, as we have argued, would best come from a robust expansion of the media exemption to the Internet, allowing for anyone who engages in "news, commentary and editorial" on the Internet to have the same freedom to do so without regulatory interference as do the New York Times, FoxNews, National Review and the Excellence in Broadcasting network. So long as vibrant netroots activity is protected, restrictions on "soft money" sources can be negotiated -- but since no such bill has been introduced in Congress yet, a blanket exemption (and then waiting to see if any problems do arise, since none did in 2004) is preferable to the FEC regulation which now will soon follow.
So today, here's your task: Pick a Democrat who voted against HR 1606. Call them, and ask them why. Be polite, but register your disappointment.
And more importantly, now that we know what they're against, find out what they're for. Because while everyone says they want to "protect bloggers", it's the details that matter:
- how would you protect group websites from being characterized as political committees?
- how would you protect incorporated sites?
- will you allow internet sites to qualify for the media exemption? Under what circumstances?
- what about volunteer activity, and the "safe harbor" rules for computer use in the office?
- what about internet uses that aren't weblogs, like wikis or podcasting?
And then report back to us on what they say.
Here's the bottom line: if Democrats want to come to us for support, they need to support us as well.
updated to add: Read excerpts from the floor debate via this link.
