What yesterday's panel proved
By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I've had some time to think about the panel on McCain-Feingold in Cyberspace, and I think some conclusions are warranted.
First, no one - least of all on the Commission - has any answers to the legion of questions raised about this rulemaking.
- Holes in the "volunteer exception" (what if you're a group of volunteers? what if you're incorporated? what is a "nominal" fee?)
- Questions about the silly "incidential, isolated, or occasional" standard for using corporate facilities including internet services.
- The actual criteria for awarding the media exemption - how is it NOT a licensing scheme?
On all these matters and more - the Commission is really in the dark. They really do need your input.
The public comment period will begin (and the 60-day clock will start ticking) on April 4th. We'll be on the case, helping you to submit helpful and effective comments.
For more reaction to yesterday's event, try Wired Magazine, O'Reilly and SaveThe Gop. I'll post more reactions as I get them.
Update [2005-4-1 10:11:50 by krempasky]: For recommended reading on the subject, try out Jim Miller's Monopoly Politics. Miller is an economist who tries to show how campaigns and elections are really just markets - and that citizens are best served when they are open and competitive. Conversely, every piece of campaign regulation, no matter how small - simply makes those markets less open and less competitive.
« Financing the General Election — Comments (6) | Internet Advisory Caucus panel wrap up — Comments (2) »
What yesterday's panel proved 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It's been particularly gratifying to see so many folks wake up to the real dangers of this garbage.
I appreciate all your efforts in this area, and know that you and I agree on the desired result
...but...
I believe your approach is fundamentally wrong:
How do you negotiate rule-making when you deny the foundational authority for the rules in the first place?
"Congress shall make no law..."
The rule is going to be made - and here's to the trying to get the best outcome. If you think it doesn't work - I'd highly encourage you to compare the March 10th draft rules with those released for comment.
On Feb 6, 2004 I requested an Advisory Opinion from the FEC
and they replied my questions were to general. But IMHO
they are relevant to the BCRA 2005 internet rule making:
1. Can I, as an independent expenditure by a single citizen or as part of a citizens group, put up web pages, or continue an existing web page expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for president 29 days before the election? If so, must I include a disclaimer stating who paid for the web pages and provide reports to the FEC?
2. Can I print handbills from a presidential candidate's website on my home printer and distribute any number of them? Would printing and distributing constitute an in-kind donation? Could I use a personal copier to speed the process? Am I limited to $2000 in paper, ink and toner or may I print a quantity equivalent to my local newspapers circulation?
3. If I title my handbill "My Gazette" do I qualify for the newspaper exemption or would it still be an "independent expenditure"? Noah Webster's dictionary defines a newspaper as apiece of paper on which is caused to be printed information or advertisement for the purpose of public distribution.
Apparently I could have done some if not all the above but the Speech Police did not know or would not answer. America needs to restore the 1st Amendment as it was understood prior to 1974 when few questions needed to be asked about how to participate in our democracy. Law is supposed to mean fixed and apply equally to all. Advisory Opinions on a case by case basis smack of feudal times and the FEC isn't Camelot.
Read my request and Fec's reply http://amendment10.tripod.com/requestforao.htm
I agree with you about the approach and think you might enjoy this aninmation designed to instruct our federal employees about the 1st Amendment:
http://amendment10.tripod.com/remedial.htm
Congress has made it illegal for citizens to broadcast ads criticizing elected federal office holders within 60-days of an election. Nothing could be more contrary to the principles of a free society and representative government. I ask sincerely, what part of "Congress shall make no law" do Federal judges, Representatives and the President not understand? I am serious. If you believe I am oversimplifying or that some how these words have a different meaning than their face value please enlighten me, for I fear I am living in a lawless land?
for doing this. Really good work. Congrats...
I understand where you are coming from, and agree that "progress" has been made.
However, I am also concerned that efforts such as yours lend credibility to a process that is inherently broken. There is no such thing as acceptable rule-making in this context.
Through your efforts, I fear you are lending credibility and moral authority to those who would establish a vast Federal machine to regulate political speech.
Right now it's a goal of removing some of its errant teeth
What is the purpose of "removing the errant teeth"? Is your goal to come up with an acceptable Federal speech regulation machine? There is no such thing.
The only acceptable solution is to kill the whole idea of regulating political speech. I believe the only way to do that is through peaceful civil disobediance: We should all "speak" as though these limitations did not exist. In fact, we should go out of our way to violate these restrictions wherever possible: A 21st Century sit-in at the segregated lunch counters, if you will.
In that sense, the more draconian the regulations, the better. Draconian regulations will at once be easier to break, and those sanctioned under them will be more inclined to provoke a sympathetic response from the public.
Only Congress can abolish the FEC - and there's no will there to do so.
So we fight on the fields given us.
Krempasky's approach is the American way.
I'm in complete agreement that the whole process is both wrong and unconstitutional, but the history of American politics is replete with examples of the losing party fighting to get the best possible outcome under the new regime. See entries under Partial Birth Abortion, Parental Notification, and - going way back - the Anti-Federalists.
Look at the abolition movement, the civil rights movement or the women's sufferage movement.
Do you think the leaders of those movements would have accepted a negotiated compromise?
Abolition was all about compromise until the Civil War. The civil rights movements accepted compromises every step of the way, because they were smart enough to know that each step was a step forward, and tactical gains could be turned into strategic ones. Suffrage is sorta the exception to the rule.
is historically the closest analogy to what the FEC and BCRA are attempting today.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/sedact.html
The University of Oklahoma Law Center
C-SPAN has the video up now. rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e033105_fec.rm
I played a short excerpt of Scott Thomas' and Mike's opening remarks in my Podcast today. Podcasts are MP3 files as enclosures in RSS that allow subscribers to automatically download programs to their PC, MP3 players, or iPods. Hence the name, Podcast. My podcasts are about the blogosphere.
I think Scott Thomas is dangerous. He clearly hasn't thought through this issue.
I'm with you Gengisdom. I voted for McCain in 2000 partly due to Campaign Finance Reform. And while I'm still a McCain fan, BCRA is now a failure in my mind and campaign finance law in general is now suspect. I'm for transparent reporting but restrictions seem to breed as many problems as they fix. I'm a convert.
But I wanted you to know I have been following your crusade against the FEC, and am fully supportive. Moreover, from my time on RedState and particularly from this issue, I have gone from tepid support of campaign finance reform to opposition.
You've won a convert. A lefty one at that. Too bad I'm not a Senator. Or an FEC Commissioner.