Victory for Speech: Putting 1606 back in the holster
By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As you know - the FEC issued VERY permissive regulations earlier this week. What remained was the question about what to do with HR 1606. Thankfully, the House Leadership has taken the prudent course: pull the bill off the calendar and hold it in reserve. If the so-called 'reformers' sue - pass the bill. If the "reformers" try to chip away at the regulatory protections - pass the bill. If the regulations turn out to be unworkable for any reason - pass the bill. We've already seen a majority vote and it would be wise for the "reform community" to remember what sort of scenario they're living under.
I just received this from Majority Leader Boehner:
“Both Rep. Jeb Hensarling and House Administration Committee Chairman Vernon Ehlers deserve great credit for bringing the issue of online freedom of speech to the forefront of public debate and for spurring the FEC to take what appears to be a hands-off approach to the Internet."The recent action by the FEC, leaving virtually all political activity on the Internet free of regulation, ensures that those engaging in politics online can continue to do so safe in the knowledge that they will not run afoul of our campaign finance laws. In light of this good faith effort by the FEC, and after discussions with the bill’s sponsor, we have postponed floor action on the bill at this time.
“The House will closely monitor the implementation of the new rule to ensure it protects bloggers and others engaging in politics online. If the new rule does not offer the appropriate protection, of if there are efforts to expand its regulatory scope, the House will resume plans to consider the Hensarling bill in order to guarantee freedom of speech on the Internet.”
Well done, Mr. Leader. And well done, Messrs. Hensarling and Ehlers.
« Financing the General Election — Comments (6) | Remarks From Today's FEC hearing — Comments (2) »
Victory for Speech: Putting 1606 back in the holster 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Would it not have helped to pass 1606 to keep any future grief dealt with - or is it just important to keep it as our "last" option?
Mind you I just dont trust a lot of what the "reformers" want to - and intend to do.
Just like in any other scenario where you are engaging an opponent - the sooner you can utterly squash your opponent, the better.
Mind you I believe the new FEC rules are fair and like them so far. Just a little concerned that we are holstering 1606 when we need to finish the job.
Please elaborate. Thanks again for fighting for freedom of speech.
It's a lot easier to make the case for 1606 against unknown or bad regulations than it is where, as here, the FEC did a good job protecting citizen activities and the only practical effect of 1606 would've been to deregulate paid political advertising online.
Than the issue at hand. For instance, granting the media exemption. It's a little unclear if passing 1606 actually obviates those protections.
Either way - better to hold our trump card for a little while. I said holster - not trade in for a television in downtown Los Angeles.
thanks for clearing that up. much appreciated. lets hope we can keep 1606 hosltered.
- Look at what the "reformers" are doing: they are still working overtime to drive a stake through the heart of 1606. This is a lesson for those of us in the free speech community - the tenacity and persistence of the reformers is to be admired and emulated, and never underestimated.
- The "reformers" can claim a major victory - they have established the regulatory principle over yet another form of political speech. This is no small victory for them, and why they were ultimately prepared to give up a great deal - anything short of 1606 - in this fight. But it is definitely a setback from where they were a year ago, and where they hope to be. Don't believe their hype about how happy they are. I know these guys and how they think, and I guarantee you that they absolutely hate these new FEC rules. The rules are not what they asked for in the original 2002 FEC rulemaking to implement McCain-Feingold; not what they asked for in court; not what they called for in their comments to the FEC on this rulemaking last spring. And they are not at all happy when they lose their adoring press coverage, which they did in this fight.
After Friday night, they didn't have a lot of options. I think they recognized that if they pushed for Congress to do something more regulatory, whether via 4900 or otherwise, they'd lose everything via 1606's assured passage. At best, I imagine they could have tried to amend 1606 before passage to say that "public communications does not include the Internet, except for paid advertising", and I have no idea how that would've turned out.
To further understand what they wanted but didn't get, check out the "reformers'" comments on the FiredUp advisory opinion.
And with an election coming up, I can see that it probably isn't worth fighting over until after that.
But I think it is dangerous to leave it where it is at. It's the same problem as the Mass. courts and the gay marriage issue: once the courts have decreed new law from on high, it is more difficult to overturn than if the right legislation/amendments are in place to begin with.
One legal, one political:
- If HR 1606 had passed, would it have only altered the definition of public communications in the new regulations, but otherwise left the additional protections in place? Or might it have mooted those as well and restored preexisting definitions of things like political committee status which would have been to the detriment of Internet users?
- Could HR 1606 have passed this week, given what the FEC had done? As Allison Hayward wrote and I linked to on That Other Site, it's a very different political climate now as opposed to when we didn't know what the regs would be.
The loophole in the BCRA still exists, Why should the Legislature show such deference to regulators, especially when the bad news may only come at time when we no longer have the ability to press forward with a bill like H.R. 1606?