RE: Campaign finance issue or free speech issue?
While I understand Chris' concerns, stated below, regarding anonymous attacks, this website and the regulation of it thereof is most certainly a free speech issue.
However, it is walking a very treacherous line between regulated and unregulated campaign speech.
By law, mainly due to the McCain/Feingold bill, express advocacy, or advocacy that expressly asks for votes against or for a candidate, is regulated. Those who call for the defeat or support of a candidate are forced to abide by certain laws, such as disclosure of funds, etc.
Clearly, this site does so.
However, the law specifies a few "magic words," such as 'vote for' or 'support' that are almost the only things distinguishing between express advocacy and issue advocacy. If the creator of this site avoided such words, but otherwise the exact same thing he says now, he would not be subject to any campaign finance law.
If the gentleman who created this site took off all the magic words, the State Elections Board could do nothing about it. Since it does include the magic words, he will most likely be forced to reveal his funding sources.
Therefore, I feel that although it is not regarded as such by the law, this is a free speech issue. The government has created a speech code for politically motivated people to use, in which they can carefully work the system which Feingold tried so hard to create.
That should alarm us, as politically active bloggers. How long until one of us pisses off the wrong candidate, and they charge one of us with express advocacy and avoidance of the law? Is there protection for us?
Free speech is at an all time low in our country--I cannot buy a domain name and tell folks who I think should be elected without being subject to hundreds of pages of statutes, and fines if I do not abide by those statutes.
This man's political speech and anyone else's who feels strongly about an issue or candidate is daily surpressed so that candidates can have the only voice in an election.
And we can thank Sen. Feingold, Mr. "Civil Liberties" himself for that.
However, it is walking a very treacherous line between regulated and unregulated campaign speech.
By law, mainly due to the McCain/Feingold bill, express advocacy, or advocacy that expressly asks for votes against or for a candidate, is regulated. Those who call for the defeat or support of a candidate are forced to abide by certain laws, such as disclosure of funds, etc.
Clearly, this site does so.
However, the law specifies a few "magic words," such as 'vote for' or 'support' that are almost the only things distinguishing between express advocacy and issue advocacy. If the creator of this site avoided such words, but otherwise the exact same thing he says now, he would not be subject to any campaign finance law.
If the gentleman who created this site took off all the magic words, the State Elections Board could do nothing about it. Since it does include the magic words, he will most likely be forced to reveal his funding sources.
Therefore, I feel that although it is not regarded as such by the law, this is a free speech issue. The government has created a speech code for politically motivated people to use, in which they can carefully work the system which Feingold tried so hard to create.
That should alarm us, as politically active bloggers. How long until one of us pisses off the wrong candidate, and they charge one of us with express advocacy and avoidance of the law? Is there protection for us?
Free speech is at an all time low in our country--I cannot buy a domain name and tell folks who I think should be elected without being subject to hundreds of pages of statutes, and fines if I do not abide by those statutes.
This man's political speech and anyone else's who feels strongly about an issue or candidate is daily surpressed so that candidates can have the only voice in an election.
And we can thank Sen. Feingold, Mr. "Civil Liberties" himself for that.
posted by J @ 9:20 AM
<< Home