PIRG Lies. Free Speech Dies.
By Blanton Posted in FEC — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
“Please note that commenting at this blog or Daily Kos would subject you to FEC Reporting under HR 4900.”
The liberal New Jersey Public Interest Research Group ("NJPIRG") has gone on the attack against HR 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act, with a solid page of lies.
First, it is important to remember what PIRG is. PIRGs are nationwide, loosely affiliated groups spawned by Ralph Nader in the sixties. They have been abusively funded in the past by forcing college students to fund them via hidden fees.
PIRGs around the country have used these forcibly obtained "dues" and money from left wing millionaires to argue that campaigns should be tightly regulated. In fact
What's remarkable is the blatant, transparent hypocrisy the PIRGS use to defend their tactics. The USPIRG Web site claims that mandatory student fees earmarked for liberal activism are "protected by the First Amendment," and are intended to "foster a marketplace of ideas."
Yet that same USPIRG Web site is a staunch supporter of radical campaign finance reform, and says that contributions to political candidates are not political speech and, therefore, not protected by the First Amendment.
And here, with a document compiled by the somewhat shadowy Center for Public Interest Research (a PIRG backed liberal think tank), NJPIRG is out to shut down HB 1606 with a bill backed by those who would silence bloggers.
The alternative to HR 1606 has emerged as H.R. 4900, a resolution sponsored by Representatives Tom Allen (D-ME) and Charlie Bass (Sell Out-NH).
Do read on.
For starters, let's compare the text of the resolutions.
First, HR 1606:
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This Act may be cited as the `Online Freedom of Speech Act'.
SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.
Second, HR 4900:
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude certain communications made over the Internet from certain requirements of such Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This Act may be cited as the `Internet Free Speech Protection Act of 2006'.
SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS FROM TREATMENT AS PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS.Section 301(22) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended--
(1) by striking `The term' and inserting `(A) The term'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(B) The term `public communication' does not include any communication made over the Internet, other than any of the following:
`(i) Any communication placed by a person on another person's website, if the aggregate amount spent for such communications exceeds $5,000 during the calendar year.
`(ii) Any communication made by a State, district, or local committee of a political party described in section 323(b).
`(iii) A communication made by any political committee.
`(iv) A communication made by any person described in section 316 (other than a corporation described in such section whose principal purpose is operating an online discussion forum or disseminating social or political ideas or commentary through operation of a website, web log, podcast, or other similar forms of Internet communication and which is not established, financed, maintained or controlled by a labor organization or by another corporation without such a principal purpose).'.
SEC. 3. EXCLUSION OF INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS FROM CERTAIN REPORTING AND DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENTS.(a) Reports by Persons Making Independent Expenditures- Section 304(c)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking `(c)(1)' and inserting `(c)(1)(A)'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(B) In the case of an individual, in determining the aggregate amount or value of independent expenditures made by the individual in a calendar year for purposes of subparagraph (A), there shall be excluded up to an annual aggregate amount of $5,000 for communications made over the Internet.'.
(b) Disclaimers on Unauthorized Advertisements and Solicitations- Section 318(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441d(a)(3)) is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: `, except that no such information shall be required in any communication made over the Internet by an individual during any calendar year for which the aggregate amount paid by such individual for such communications does not exceed $5,000.'.
SEC. 4. EXCLUSION OF EXPENDITURES ON INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS FROM DETERMINATION OF THRESHOLD FOR REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL COMMITTEES.Section 301(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(4)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii);
(2) by striking `(4)' and inserting `(4)(A)'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(B) In determining the amount of contributions or expenditures made for purposes of this paragraph, there shall be excluded up to an annual aggregate amount of $10,000 for Internet-related expenses such as expenses for Internet access and hosting services, creation of an Internet site, and creating, hosting, or participating in an online discussion using blogging or other software.'.
SEC. 5. INCLUSION OF ONLINE MEDIA WITHIN EXEMPTION FROM TREATMENT AS EXPENDITURES OF STORIES AND COMMENTARIES APPEARING IN MEDIA.Section 301(9)(B)(i) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)(i)) is amended by striking `or other periodical publication,' and inserting the following: `other periodical publication, or Internet site or service,'.
SEC. 6. INDEXING OF AMOUNTS.Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`INDEXING OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS`SEC. 325. (a) Indexing-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In any calendar year after 2008, each of the following amounts shall be increased by the inflation adjustment described in subsection (b):
`(A) The amount referred to in section 301(4)(B) (relating to the exclusion of expenditures on Internet communications from the determination of the threshold for registration of political committees).
`(B) The amount referred to in section 301(22)(B)(i) (relating to the exclusion of Internet communications from treatment as public communications).
`(C) The amount referred to in section 304(c)(1)(B) (relating to the exclusion of expenditures on Internet communications from the determination of the threshold for the filing of reports on independent expenditures).
`(D) The amount referred to in section 318(a)(3) (relating to disclaimers in communications made over the Internet).
`(2) APPLICATION IN ODD-NUMBERED YEARS- Increases made under this subsection shall only be made in odd-numbered years and such increases shall remain in effect for the 2-year period beginning on the first day following the date of the last general election in the year preceding the year in which the amount is increased and ending on the date of the next general election.
`(b) Inflation Adjustment Described- In subsection (a), the `inflation adjustment' is the percent difference determined under section 315(c)(1)(A), except that for purposes of this subsection, the base period under such section shall be 2007.'.
SEC. 7. PUBLICATION BY FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION OF GUIDELINE ON INDIVIDUAL INTERNET ACTIVITIES.Not later than 150 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Election Commission shall publish a single policy guideline for the use of individuals engaging in online communications which describes in plain language the rules and regulations applicable under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to individual Internet activity.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
What HR 1606 is amending is 2 U.S.C. 431, section 22, which currently states
The term “public communication” means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.
1606 would just add that the internet is not part of that definition.
HR 4900, on the other hand, is a legal quagmire for bloggers. Let's just repeat this: HR 1606 was written to be concise so bloggers don't need to worry about the FEC. HR 4900 would do a host of things that would require bloggers to be worried about limits, etc. But we can ignore all of that. Let's just look at how HR 4900 would amend the term "public communication."
Section 301(22) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended--
(1) by striking `The term' and inserting `(A) The term'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(B) The term `public communication' does not include any communication made over the Internet, other than any of the following:
`(i) Any communication placed by a person on another person's website, if the aggregate amount spent for such communications exceeds $5,000 during the calendar year.
`(ii) Any communication made by a State, district, or local committee of a political party described in section 323(b).
`(iii) A communication made by any political committee.
`(iv) A communication made by any person described in section 316 (other than a corporation described in such section whose principal purpose is operating an online discussion forum or disseminating social or political ideas or commentary through operation of a website, web log, podcast, or other similar forms of Internet communication and which is not established, financed, maintained or controlled by a labor organization or by another corporation without such a principal purpose).'.
Please note that commenting at this blog or Daily Kos would subject you to FEC Reporting under HR 4900. Why? Because the legislation does not distinguish between you having spent $5,000 and $5,000 being spent generally on the communication. Kos is on record as spending well over $5000 to keep his site up and going and we're right at that amount. So, your participation at either site would subject you to reporting requirements with the FEC.
This is another example of the "reformers" wanting to shut everyone out of the political process except themselves and incumbent politicians.
NJPIRG, in this document sets out the lies and distortions of the "reformers."
They say that Bass-Allen (HR 4900) extends the "press exemption to online media" and HR 1606 does not. Well, of course it does not. It is not needed. Jerks.
They say "H.R. 1606 is potentially more burdensome to bloggers than the Bass-Allen substitute because it provides far less protection from the campaign finance laws than Bass-Allen." Right. You scroll up and look at the different laws. You tell me if you think that is true.
They say, "Bass-Allen provides more protection for bloggers and online speakers than H.R. 1606." Sadly, we are not allowed to use expletives at RedState, otherwise I'd be calling BS.
Again and again and again the reformers will lie and let free speech die. That's what H.R. 4900 would do. Now you know what to do. Call (202) 224-3121 and tell your congressman to vote for H.R. 1606 and against H.R. 4900.
« Financing the General Election — Comments (6) | Strategery and 1606 — Comments (0) »
PIRG Lies. Free Speech Dies. 15 Comments (0 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
- I don't trust PIRG as far as I can throw them.
- Isn't this a case of keep it simple stupid?
Having worked in the legislature I understand that sometimes you need to get a little complicated but this isn't one of those times. 4900 is needless complex and doesn't get the job done as clearly as 1606.
The CDT proposal attempts to fit the Internet within the existing scheme, and it would indeed protect blogs while regulating other things. The problem is that it assumes the sphere ought to be regulated in the first place.
The CDT thing is well-intentioned, even if some of its supporters aren't. I think Mike would agree.
Piece of legislation is that an anti-regulation FEC might construe it as requiring you to spend $5,000 individually for your communication on another's website. Of course, regulatory agencies like the FEC regulate. It's what they do. And even if this might provide protection for RedState and Kos right now, that would subject the matter to the changing whims of the FEC chairmen, since either interpretation would be defensible under the statute.
In either event, as Adam says, this begins with the premise that the blogosphere should be regulated at all, which is precisely the sort of thing we are fighting against.
Just because something is a "public communication" doesn't mean it has to be reported under HR 4900 or campaign finance law. What it means is that it can't be coordinated between certain entities using certain funds. That leads to a different set of issues from what you're positing.
If you're going to oppose the CDT proposal, get it right. Don't make the same kind of overreaching attacks which 1606's opponents are happy to do.
It's such a blatant attack on freedom of speech, which is protected under the 1st amendment. So why in the world hasn't it already gone to the Supreme Court to be shown as unconstitutional? I'm no lawyer, but if pornography is protected by free speech, then why in the world can't political speech be protected as well? It absolutely amazes me that no one has challenged this. I'm just Joe Sixpack. Is there ANYTHING I can do about this because appearently those who have the time and money to run this issue throught the courts just don't seem to care - and that is very alarming to me.
Another challenge is being prepared. This could go before SCOTUS in 2007. This is with two (possibly 3) new judges on the court.
Well, this sort of freedom of expression/association/etc. without government regulation is what I was hoping would be protected under the new justices (particularly Alito). Better not let us down.
It's a simple tactic, and if HR 4900 passes, you'd better be able to balance your checkbooks more effectively than most people. $5,000? $10,000? Folks, this is serfdom money, and if this bill passes, that's all you're going to be able to spend.
We knew it was only a matter of time before the Congress started getting ornery about blogsites, but this is beyond the pale. This bill will rip the heart out of the blogosphere. If you can't spend more than 5 grand on your political blogsite, you might as well really go home and listen to Brittney Spears while your betters in Washington decide Right from Wrong.
Remember, under legislation such as HR4900, only people like George Soros, Teresa Heinz Kerry, and Alec Baldwin will be able to fund their own versions of free speech -- because they don't blog directly, they support organizations and money-laundering philanthropies. People who run websites like Daily Kos and RedState, however, will have the white-hot spotlight of scrutiny placed on them to prevent them from providing fora that allow like-minded individuals to speak politically.
Remember, folks, what some Washingtonians believe your place in this society actually is: small, aggregate and occasionally useful for their political purposes. This bill is the most blatant attempt I've ever seen to enforce that prerogative of superiority.
In either event, as Adam says, this begins with the premise that the blogosphere should be regulated at all, which is precisely the sort of thing we are fighting against.
Couldnt have said it better. Excellent point, Leon.
Just because something is a "public communication" doesn't mean it has to be reported under HR 4900 or campaign finance law.
Well, duh. Most campaign finance law works like that. There are limits -- like the $5000.00. But, like most defenders of reform, you are making statements that misstate or hide the proposition, which in this case is that bloggers have more potential pitfalls than H.R. 1606, despite the spin that it is a "safer" harbor for bloggers.
What it means is that it can't be coordinated between certain entities using certain funds.
Point me to that section, because I've read the legislation over and over and I consider myself fairly proficient in campaign finance laws, but it seems to me that this is not the only caveat in the legislation. There are other pitfalls as well. Again, you are hiding pitfalls, claiming this is a safer harbor than H.R. 1606, which it is not.
Under the Act, "public communications" are those things that, when they're coordinated with a federal candidate or paid for via certain means, come with disclaimer requirements. Go here.
Do you understand the media exception?
(And, look, I support HR 1606, but I don't pretend that it's the end of the story.)
NJPIRG, NYPIRG, all the PIRGS make me sick. I think it is absolutely disgusting that they can force you to pay them for activities you abjectly oppose. Unfortunately, I funded them the first year of my college days. This was because, like most students, you have absolutely NO idea that you are paying for it. It's not like they list it as a line item on your tuition bill.
The good news is that you actually can go to the PIRG office and demand your money back. The first time I did the guy was so surprised that he didnt even know how to go about it. Yes, they do have a form for it but it must have taken him 20 minutes to find it. We are not talking about a lot of money ($7 maybe) but in college thats two meals and making a point.
You have to repeat this every semester but it is quite painless and if every conservative did it you may actually make a point...and get some fries with that to boot.
Please explain to me why HR 1606 should be passed at all !!
How can this make sense -
" DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION = shall not include communications over the Internet."
That is all blogs are "Public Communication OVER The Internet"
I say defeat both bills !!!!
Gee, I wonder which resolution was written by lawyers seeking to gag blogs and other forms of personal communication on the web and or those who are wanting to silence the new media.