Redstate

during the 1990's, but still could not get the congress back. They got the campaign fniance law rewritten, and drove right through the loopholes with 527s, broke the law by coordinating with 527s, but still could not win. Now they realize there is just to much freedom going on and are perfectly happy to see formal censorship on the internet, as a start.

If you are not explicitly for freedom, are you implicitly for restricting freedom?

Reminds me of the debate over the necessity of the Bill of Rights.

Answer to semi-rhetorical question above: In the case of the Dems, yes. The party leaders would like nothing better than to restrict political debate on the Internet, but it would be too damning to state so explicitly.

Hmmm. In the end, I submitted nothing either. And it may be that Mr. Trippi came to the same conclusion I did. Which is that sometimes there are friends you don't need.

No one who served as webmaster for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or who ran Howard Dean's Amazing Internet Campaign, will have much credibility before the FEC on the subject of keeping the Internet Safe for Democracy.

We got paid to raise some cain on the Internet. And we did. Hooray for capitalism. But we are probably the wrong guys to try to "help" you convince the FEC that there's nobody on the Internet but us chickens.

There are foxes out there, and it's probably not a bad thing that somebody keep an eye on them. The fact that I, in my spare time, might blog away as powerlessly as the next guy with a blogspot account does not take away from the fact that if they look me up in the book, they are going to find out that I have certain "commercial interests" at stake.

So I concluded that I should keep my head down on this and not draw any fire to your side. I am a known fox, and for me to advocate for open access to the chicken coop will not aid your cause. Trippi is an even bigger fox, so you don't really want him, either.

How can you complain about Dems when the the FEC commissioners are appointed by Bush?  Blame bush first and then the senate then whoever else you want.

That is what they want.  The demise of Dan Rather showed them that this was something that had to be brough under control if they were to have a hope at winning.

Freedom, though, cannot be contained.  Guess the FEC will have to learn that one the hard way.

the Federal Election Commission is split, by law, between Democrats and Republicans. Typically, Commissioners' names are supplied by the Senate leaders of each party.

Thanks for playing.

I think the dems are explicitly against freedom, and are taking every opportunity to see that majority rule and freedom of expression and religion are as restricted as they can get away with.

letting the bureaucracy of the FEC bumble its way into censorship and restriciton is just gravy.

http://www.fec.gov/about.shtml

You're saying the president's appointments are meaningless at the FEC?  He's doing what he's told to do by Senators?  Not responsible at all?

John McCain has more influence over who gets on (and who doesn't) than the President.

Or to pose the question more directly: who was the President who appointed Bradley Smith?

for a reason. Ask your civics teacher about them.

I didn't know anything about this at all.

Here's some relevant info to come up to speed:

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nprm/internet_comm/notice_2005-10.pdf

SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission requests comments on proposed changes to its rules that would include paid advertisements on the Internet in the definition of ``public communication.'' These changes to the Commission's rules would implement the recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Shays v. Federal Election Commission, which held that the current definition of ``public communication'' impermissibly excludes all Internet communications. Comment is also sought on the related definition of ``generic campaign activity'' and on proposed changes to the disclaimer regulations. Additionally, comment is sought on proposed new exceptions to the definitions of ``contribution'' and ``expenditure'' for certain Internet activities and communications that would qualify as individual volunteer activity or that would qualify for the ``press exemption.'' These proposals are intended to ensure that political committees properly finance and disclose their Internet communications, without impeding individual citizens from using the Internet to speak freely regarding candidates and elections. The Commission has made no final decision on the issues raised in this rulemaking. Further information appears in the supplementary information that follows.

...is who appointed the judges who are forcing the FEC to apply what was already a stupid law to the Internet?

A clinton-appointee