The Federal Election Commission, after sending the blogosphere into a tizzy over the possibility of subjecting internet communications to campaign finance law, has released proposed rules that are far more blogger-friendly than had been originally feared. You can read the draft here. Rick Hasen, who has forgotten more about campaign finance law than I will ever know, has lots of posts on his Election Law blog about the proposed rules.
Got something to tell the FEC about these proposed rules? Visit www.regulations.gov.
Please share widely!
The Big Chillby Ben DoubleCrossedDo you know how many pages American citizens had to read to understand how they could participate in ‘Federal’ Elections prior to 1975? The answer is zero. In 2005 you can down load a 16 page Citizen’s guide from the Federal Election Commission website to help you learn about reporting requirements and intervals, independent vs in-kind donations, soft vs hard money etc. Are you encouraged to participate yet?The fight to maintain our rights to participate in democracy by freely speaking, printing and assembling with others who share our views is not one the baby boomer generation could have conceived of in our youth nor is it a fight members of a free society should have to fight. It is a fight necessitated by self serving politicians, activist judges with agendas, attorneys specializing in campaign law and bureaucrats with a stake in the expansion of their fiefdoms.The shortest definition of law is fixed. The Constitution is not a living document and as Judge Scalia recently pointed out, it says somethings and doesn’t say others. If you can change the definition of words at whim how could law be codified? The 1st Amendment denies Congress the authority to write laws abridging speech, press and assembly and it means exactly what it says. The Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act are unconstitutional laws that abridge all three prohibitions, usurp the rightful authority of the individual States to regulate elections, favor the incumbent politicians over challengers, exempt editorials by the corporate press but regulate pamphleteers walking handbills door to door, expect journalists to interview candidates prior to publishing but claim independent grassroots organizations that do likewise have committed felony coordination (assembly). Campaign laws also require disclaimers and disclosure of who paid for what. On the face this would seem in the public interest and I have no objection personally. Nonetheless, one must wonder whether the Revolutionary war would have succeded without the American mischief of anonymous speech? And all this censorship is based on the Supreme Court’s decision that the people need to have faith in their elected officials and thus laws must be written to avoid the appearance of impropriety! In my humble opinion the failure to Amend the Constitution to modify the 1st and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights and get 2/3rds of the States to agree is a major impropriety that really strains my faith in my elected and appotinted federal employees!