March 9, 2005
Dear Member of Congress,
Exactly four months ago, we joined across the aisle to urge your support for H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act, and to oppose a hastily-drafted alternative.
We write to you again today, from the right and the left, to urge you to support free speech online by passing H.R. 1606 next week. While there are interesting proposals being offered to provide a comprehensive "fix" for Internet regulation, Congress needs to pass the Online Freedom of Speech Act now and consider long-term answers later.
H.R. 1606 would preserve the status quo which governed the 2004 election cycle and beyond, one in which a vibrant blogosphere empowered millions of citizens to influence national politics, leveling the effect of wealth on the electoral process, and without any of the corruption which its opponents now fear. Its passage would send a strong message to the Federal Election Commission to tread lightly when it comes to the Internet, telling it that Congress does not wish to stifle online citizen participation in the political process.
Published reports indicate that, as of February 2006, there are over 14 million weblogs, with approximately 75,000 new blogs are created every day, about one every second. The blogosphere is over 60 times bigger than it was only 3 years ago. With the blogosphere continuing to double in size about every five-and-a-half months, it is simply not possible for any person or entity, no matter how wealthy they may be or how much money they can spend, to dominate or corrupt online political discourse.
H.R. 1606 does not create any "loopholes". As FEC Chairman Michael Toner (R) has stated, the charge that H.R. 1606 would somehow allow federal candidates to coordinate with corporations and unions to spend soft money funds to purchase Internet banner and video ads on behalf of candidates "has no legal foundation." Former Democratic commissioner Karl Sandstrom concurred in his recent testimony before Congress:
You know, I have heard some nonsense here today. But nonsense sometimes dressed up in legal analysis is no more than a clown in a bow tie. For example, I have heard that somehow there was a complete exemption for the Internet put into the Commission's regulations. In many ways I am for a broader exemption, but that was never the case. For example, a labor union could not pay for a candidate's Internet ads. That is not permissible under the current law. It is not permissible because 441(b) prohibits it.
All there was was an exemption from the definition of public communication. Yard signs are exempt from public communication. But not a single member on this committee would ever go to a corporation in their district and say purchase yard signs for me because they are not a public communication, and you can use your corporate money for that purpose.
That just is not the case. That is not the law. And no amount of obfuscation can make it the law. 441(b) is a ban on using corporate and union funds in connection with an election, the purchase of ad space that is expressly advocates election or defeat if a candidate clearly falls within that prohibition.
The FEC needs Congress' guidance on these matters. President Bush recently replaced half its commissioners via recess appointment, and the new Commissioners - however well-meaning - have not had the benefit of the months of study and live testimony conducted during 2005. To require them to swiftly promulgate regulations in this field, as a district court has ordered them to do, runs the severe risk of creating haphazard and misguided decrees which could chill citizen participation. Moreover, such regulations could be disingenuously employed by partisans on either side to club their political adversaries, attacking their opponents and chilling their behavior via the FEC complaint process, rather than what the Internet currently encourages: active debate. The FEC has announced that if Congress does not act, they will vote on regulations on March 16. This is why Congress needs to act now.
We are encouraged by the proposal from the Center for Democracy & Technology, but we cannot advocate its passage now. It is a solution in search of a problem which has yet to manifest, and therefore requires full study and consideration in Committee. It is not an alternative to H.R. 1606. Do not let H.R. 1606's opponents paint this as an either-or situation: Congress should pass H.R. 1606 now to continue the temporary exemption, and then fully consider the CDT's and other proposals. We continue to advocate a cautious approach which steers clear of additional regulations until real corruption becomes evident. At that point, Congress and the Federal Election Commission will still exist, and can prevent actual problems and not merely hypothetical ones.
The House Administration Committee has studied H.R. 1606 and held hearings, whose transcripts are available on its website: http://cha.house.gov. The hearings made clear that H.R. 1606 is supported by Democratic and Republican FEC commissioners, by campaign finance law experts, and by the bloggers who would be subject to it.
H.R. 1606 is ready to pass. Last year's vote indicated it already has majority support, and now has the support of both Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Reid in the Senate. Please support H.R. 1606 now.
Sincerely,
Markos Moulitsas Zúniga. DailyKos
Michael Krempasky, RedState
Comments are closed on this story.