Redstate

I apologize to be naive about the situation, but what is the congressman's reasoning for passing HR 4900?

For those of us who do not live on The Hill, please explain how HR 4900 would deny anyone the right to participate in blogs other than one's own.  Obviously, there would be a civil war if this were true.

After reading and re-reading HR4900, it is absolutely necessary to read what will become the revised referred to 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act.

Try getting copies of all of the previous resolutions that constructed that 1971 Act and cut and paste the "gibberish" in HR4900 into the Act; and then read what is developed.

Has this been actually done and presented for examination and "Opinions"?

The "Internet Free Speech Protection Act

of 2006" is very confusing.  Check it out at:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&
amp;filename=h4900ih.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/109_cong_bills

The problem is that it is ammending laws that are in other places, so it is very difficult to know what it actually all means in the end.

(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.

__

It looks like the bill gives bloggers an exemption, but excludes from the exemption blog ads (communication placed on another's website if costs for the communication exceeds $5000).

Now, I'd repeal the whole lot of campaign finance reform acts, but really, I think this just helps clarify what types of internet activity are covered by campaign regulations and what isn't. Clarity is always better than leaving it for the courts to loko at with no guidance.                            

Please explain to us why HR 4900 is bad.  You need to do this, not just tell us to reflexively vote against it.  You can write a single sentence but I'm afraid you're not convincing many people with it.

Why does the CDT (against the Patriot Act) feel that:

CDT drafted the proposal in response to mounting efforts in the House of Representatives to pass a measure (HR 1606) that doesn't go far enough to protect the rights of political speakers on the Internet.

Why doesn't HR1606 go far enough to protect the rights of political speakers on the Internet, in their words, and why is HR4900 a worse option?

You're not getting anywhere without an explanation.

That WAS a parody.

Stop screwing with free speech. Stop trying to regulate political speech. Now. Full stop. Or else.

McCain Feingold needs to go. Campaign contribution limits need to go from individuals. Disclose all on a real time basis, forbid non-citizens from donating anything. That should be about it.

We obviously don't have a press that respects its freedom and obligation. We the people need to made sure that any politico from either party or any party who screws with our liberty is going to get a smack down in the political sense of the term.

if McCain would repudiate the use the dems made of him on McCain-Feingold, I would galdly support him for President. Feingold has proven to be a wackjob pos liar. McCain needs to take the opening and bail.

This Congressman who is involved in trying to regulate our free speech needs to stop now and apologize.

a RINO.

He is my congressman, and I do not like him, I have voted against him in primaries at every opportunity (he usually gets my vote in the general, because the dem candidate is well to the left of him-although I seriously contemplated a libertarian vote the last go around, but the libertarian was a bit to wacked for my tastes).

But he tends to fall prey to liberal ideas, and he loves to spend your money.

plays with restricting/controlling/reforming campaign finance, the more difficult that make it for people to excersize their rights to free speech.

What is ironic to me is that first amendment was intended to protect political speech from government restriction, but in the end the first amendment doesn't seem to do that anymore, while it protects your right to view pornography unrestricted.  I think the founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves, every time congress even mentions the words "reform" with regards to campaigning.

In general it seems when congress tries to fix something, they just make it worse.

But certain things, like free speach and free practice of religion, are not reformable. Every attempt to regualte violates the entire intent. As the execerable Feingold shows us, they would rather make it easier for Al Qaeda to communicate freely with Americans than for Americans to freely discuss politics.

    does a pretty good job of explaining why.

http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/3/13/204728/291