Via Taegan Goddard, check out this interview with a member of the Federal Election Commission. Current FEC regulations pretty much exempt anything that happens on the internet from campaign finance law (excluding, obviously, online credit card contributions and the like). But that may be coming to an end. And if it does, it has huge ramifications for the internet in general, and for the blogosphere in particular. For example, linking to the website of a candidate you like might be considered a "contribution" to that candidate – so if you’ve already sent the candidate a check for the maximum allowable amount, you’d have broken the law.
Yikes. I see a big First Amendment case looming.
Please share widely!
Well, that is flatly ridiculous. You can’t say “Here’s my favoritest candidate in the world, vote for him and go give him money” on your own damn website, for free??Crazy. I predict the court (even this court — even Scalia) will sneeze that one away with a quickness.Please tell me I’m right, David. Please?
Actually, Scalia thinks that all campaign finance regulation is unconstitutional because it restricts too much speech. (Not a crazy position, IMHO.) So he’s not the one we have to worry about on this one – it’s the “liberals” that have been willing to uphold contribution limits and other regulations against First Amendment challenges. But whether they’ll accept regulation of the internet to a degree similar to regulation of other mass media is beyond my powers of prediction.
Scalia also thinks that the government derives its authority from God, rather than from the people. Whether or not that’s insane or superstition, it certainly seems to point to — yipes — judicial activism!