It was one year ago today that the Federal Election Commission unanimously voted to approve its set of netroots-friendly regulations applying campaign finance law to the Internet.
What the FEC decided was this: if you're involved in online advertising -- "communications placed for a fee on another person’s Web site" -- then the disclaimer and disclosure requirements applicable in other media applied to you online as well. But otherwise, it was all about extending protections. The Center for Democracy and Technology summarizes:
Quick Checklist for Individual Political Advocacy Online:
- I actively engage in political debate on some of the leading online political blogs.
- I talk with friends online about politics on chat sites, and through instant messaging or "voice over IP" (VoIP) services.
- I am active on social networking sites, and I post material about my favorite candidates, including copies of their literature and links to their campaign web sites.
- I plan to send e-mails to all of my friends in my address book encouraging them to vote for a candidate, and forward campaign literature with my e-mails.
- I've made a short video supporting or attacking a federal candidate and have posted it on a free video-sharing site.
- I run my own blog (or my own website) and I express my political views and post campaign material on my site, but I don't sell ad space on the site.
- I collaborate with a group of friends in my online political activities, but as a group we do not collaborate in offline political work or plan to buy online advertisements.
- I don't plan on buying advertisements on any blogs or websites to express my political opinions.
- I don't receive payments of any kind from any campaign or candidate.
- The only funds I spend on my online political activities are my basic costs for my computer, my Internet access, and (if I have my own web site) my domain name and web hosting fees.
If the above points describe the full extent of your online political activities, then you are almost certainly not subject to regulation by the campaign finance laws.
In addition, blogging from work is protected under campaign finance law -- if not, necessarily, by your employer. And there's more, but the point is: you don't need to talk to a lawyer to make sure you can blog.
Make no mistake about it -- this was a victory for our side, as prominent regulation advocate Carol Darr conceded to Wired News last week:
"My view now is that (campaign finance) 'reformers' like me have lost the battle," said the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet's Darr. "It's time to declare defeat, and for the lawyers and political consultants to play it as it lays -- on a wide open, largely unregulated field where almost anything goes."
The reform community had been wary of granting too much freedom, opposing efforts to extend the media exemption to partisan blogs which sought to advocate and fundraise on behalf of candidates and seeking narrower individual-based exemptions instead. And they're still fear-mongering about dirty foreigners impurifying our precious bodily fluids and the dangers of a Halliburton-blog corrupting the Internets. Or, as we once put it:
There are two paradigms the Commission could employ in examining the Internet. One would be to see it as a threat to clean elections similar to commercial mass media and treat online activities as presumptively subject to regulation unless they fall into one of the narrowly-tailored categories deemed acceptable.
The other would be to recognize that the Internet is inherently different, that its unique ability to empower millions of citizens to become more directly involved in national affairs than ever before requires that regulation be drawn with a light touch and narrow focus, treating citizen activities as presumptively legitimate unless falling into a narrow band of known harms.
They lost that battle, and instead, we're in the world that Markos, Atrios, Matt Stoller and I had advocated -- let's presume that the online free market of ideas is working, but if problems crop up, we can deal with it later. With the experience of the 2006 cycle now under our belts, it does seem like this light-regulation system is working, and that common sense and sound campaign practices will rein in most abuses. between Ned Lamont, "macaca" and victories like Carol Shea-Porter's, the 2006 cycle showed only positives as to the Internet's impact on politics, while those few miscreants all got caught.
Obviously, the concern these days focuses on the YouTube "loophole" and the Hillary/1984 ad -- that because one doesn't have to pay a fee to upload one's video online, campaigns, parties and PACs can place videos on YouTube without disclosing their role, and folks are concerned this might be an opening for abuse. I tend to think that this isn't much of a problem: between traceable IP addresses and the demands of the human ego to take credit for popular work (especially in the political world), things that need to get traced back will be. And I'm leery of any regulation that would purport to only apply to campaigns, parties and PACs but might inadvertantly rope in private citizens' voluntary efforts as well.
But my point here is not to advocate for or against any new regulation, but just to highlight that this is how it's supposed to happen with online politics -- start from a default of deregulation, and only add regulations to the extent that specific abuses become so evident and ruinous to compel a response.
One year later, we're doing okay.
edited to add: There's also a story on Salon.com today on the YouTube issue in which I'm quoted.
Comments are closed on this story.