Vote pending on regulating political bloggers

2006-03-15

By Robert Niles: David LaFontaine, a local freelancer who has written for OJR in the past, passed along this note. Tomorrow, the U.S. House of Representative will vote on H.R. 1606, a bill that would "amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication."

Why is this important to online journalists? I'll let David explain:

The lawyers' point of view is that unless the poorly written campaign finance bill that was passed in haste to prove that "See! Congress IS doing something about dirty money!" - unless that kludgy law is amended, in the future, if you want to have a discussion about politics, perhaps even come out in favor of a candidate you like - you're going to have to register yourself and be approved by a governmental agency.
Apparently, this is already happening in Wisconsin.

Obviously, this situation is a lot more complex that just a "Hey! They're infringing on our right to free speech!" The flip side of this is that because of the unique status of bloggers and the web, they can operate like a newspaper and an arm of a political campaign at the same time... the law hasn't quite caught up to technology yet.

As usual, the lawyers are running around with their hair on fire - much like how every damn story about how a young girl gets lured by an Internet predator gets huge play on TV and in the papers - there have been great essays on how every new technology goes through a period where it is viewed with panic as contributing to the incipient downfall of Civilization As We Know It, and the Internet has certainly spawned more than a few of these.

Back on topic. The remedy to this perceived problem is HR 1606, which, as I said, has been dubbed the "Online Freedom of Speech Act." I'm hoping that that does not turn out to be an ironic title like "Clear Skies Act" or "Patriot Act" or "Protect the Forests Initiative"...

This bill has garnered the support of both Daily Kos and Red State - which is a remarkable case study of blood enemies coming together against a mutual threat. Here's a link to a pretty good round-up on Kos.

Links to this article: Technorati, Yahoo

Comments:

From Robert Niles on March 16, 2006 at 9:24 AM

The vote has now been put off, for at least a week, possibly clearing the way for the FCC to step in next week and issue regulations on political speech online. We'll see what happens.

From Jon Garfunkel on March 16, 2006 at 9:08 PM

It's funny. One of the hallmarks of journalism is telling both sides of the story-- and staying out of partisan politics. So it's just odd to see journalist institutions lining up behind anyone who reaches out for a press badge.

David LaFontaine does cite a "good round up" on the Daily Kos by one Adam B., which at least gets both sides of the story-- mentioning the alternative bill. But he fails to name it directly: it's called HR 4900, aka the Bass-Allen amendment. I think it deserves a balanced perspective. (which incidentally, among the links given, is best presented through the article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

The trouble is, once again, the broad brush of the term "blogger" which is no more specific than "writer." There is no "writer's exemption" from campaign finance laws.

Bear in mind at that the loophole that HR 1606 allows is that a private citizen to give unlimited money to a web scrivener, call them a "blogger" and let them drive a humvee through the media exemption.

Regarding the Wisconsin state of affairs: most certainly $25 is too low a bar-- gosh, that's the amount we had to report from for the student senate in college. The $5000 bar set by Bass-Allen is much more reasonable.
Also consider the effect of government policy affecting communications practice (cf. Paul Starr's media hypothesis). The guidelines today channel "journalism" to promote issues and ideas, not candidates; the guidelines just as well encourage people to participate in community forums over the Brookfield, WI alderman's interest to "pummel candidates in local elections."

This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.