Why Is It So Hard?
I've been wondering why it was so hard to just pass what should have been a slam dunk of a bill in Congress. HR 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act, was designed to rewrite part of the ridiculous campaign finance laws, which themselves seem to have done absolutely nothing to stifle money in campaigns and may have in fact caused it to get worse. A judge ruled not long ago that the FEC had full authority to regulate political blogs and web sites, regardless of partisan affiliation. The FEC, much to its credit, has been dragging its feet in writing rules regarding such regulation in the hopes Congress would get off its rear and correct the matter. Alas, they're still waiting.
HR 1606 failed the other day to be passed without special rules (which requires a 2/3 majority). The roll for the vote is here if you want to see how your Congressman voted. Rep. Dan Burton predictably voted for it. Say what you will about him, he likes free speech. Julia Carson of Indianapolis predictably voted against it. Say what you will about her, she hates free speech, mostly if it comes from anyone to the right of Stalin. Just thought I'd add those for the viewers in central Indiana.
On a separate note, I'm not sure why people in Indianapolis have tolerated having a socialist Representative for so long. It's not just that she's a Democrat. Except for the pathetic vote on the Assault Weapons Ban, Andy Jacobs wasn't that bad of a Rep before her. Regardless, she's pretty horendous, politically. Her belief in this Republic in its original form is nil. She wants a purely socialist facist state, but I digress. She's a topic for another time.
So I keep wondering, why did so many vote to stifle free speech on the Net? I think many are still afraid of its power, minimal though it still is. Others, and I have to agree with Congresswoman Blackburn's analysis on this, voted for it only because they voted for campaign finance. And now, through lethargy, simple political machine continuity, or actual intent, they don't want to see the original law challenged this way. They'd rather restrictions get worse than lessen and they'd rather more control be placed on free speech. Not exactly a set of ideal Representatives if you ask me. Instead of wanting to work for the people, they want to work against us. Hope you voters keep this in mind next November.
To those who did vote for HR 1606, I applaud you. Keep fighting the good fight. Keep your fingers crossed, people. We may yet see it pass.
I've been wondering why it was so hard to just pass what should have been a slam dunk of a bill in Congress. HR 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act, was designed to rewrite part of the ridiculous campaign finance laws, which themselves seem to have done absolutely nothing to stifle money in campaigns and may have in fact caused it to get worse. A judge ruled not long ago that the FEC had full authority to regulate political blogs and web sites, regardless of partisan affiliation. The FEC, much to its credit, has been dragging its feet in writing rules regarding such regulation in the hopes Congress would get off its rear and correct the matter. Alas, they're still waiting.
HR 1606 failed the other day to be passed without special rules (which requires a 2/3 majority). The roll for the vote is here if you want to see how your Congressman voted. Rep. Dan Burton predictably voted for it. Say what you will about him, he likes free speech. Julia Carson of Indianapolis predictably voted against it. Say what you will about her, she hates free speech, mostly if it comes from anyone to the right of Stalin. Just thought I'd add those for the viewers in central Indiana.
On a separate note, I'm not sure why people in Indianapolis have tolerated having a socialist Representative for so long. It's not just that she's a Democrat. Except for the pathetic vote on the Assault Weapons Ban, Andy Jacobs wasn't that bad of a Rep before her. Regardless, she's pretty horendous, politically. Her belief in this Republic in its original form is nil. She wants a purely socialist facist state, but I digress. She's a topic for another time.
So I keep wondering, why did so many vote to stifle free speech on the Net? I think many are still afraid of its power, minimal though it still is. Others, and I have to agree with Congresswoman Blackburn's analysis on this, voted for it only because they voted for campaign finance. And now, through lethargy, simple political machine continuity, or actual intent, they don't want to see the original law challenged this way. They'd rather restrictions get worse than lessen and they'd rather more control be placed on free speech. Not exactly a set of ideal Representatives if you ask me. Instead of wanting to work for the people, they want to work against us. Hope you voters keep this in mind next November.
To those who did vote for HR 1606, I applaud you. Keep fighting the good fight. Keep your fingers crossed, people. We may yet see it pass.
posted by Rob Beck | 12:07 PM
1 Comments:
When the court ruling initially came down, I spent some time trying to get my head around what FEC "regulation" of the Internet would entail. The best analysis my meager legal interpretation skills could yield was that net advertisements would be treated as "in-kind" donations, with the same value as a paid ad on the site carries.
When a newspaper offers commentary on a ballot issue or endorses a candidate, do they have to declare this as a contribution? If a talking head goes on Focks News to argue a side, is it reported to the FEC? On the other hand, if a media outlet donates ad space to a campaign, it's a different story. Assuming the Internet were treated the same as any other medium, I can't see how it would be any different from these.
Now, assuming that's the case, who would be opposed to excluding the Internet from the rules applied to other media?
The other media.
Broadcast and print outlets make lots of money every cycle from political ads of every stripe. If this loophole is opened, it effectively exempts Internet campaigns from the regulations imposed in the "MSM" -- which will only hasten the shift of campaign focus away from the majors and toward the direct-marketing 'Net model.
That means ad revenues decrease -- especially for the print media, which has already been hit hard by the new paradigm.
So that's one group that will go to bat to kill this bill.
Post a Comment
<< Home