Readers' Opinions

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."