Slashdot Log In
FEC Will Not Regulate Political Blogging
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Sep 05, 2007 04:11 PM
from the still-free-to-speak-your-mind-for-now dept.
from the still-free-to-speak-your-mind-for-now dept.
eldavojohn writes "Despite complaints that political bloggers should be subject to campaign finance laws since they are donating huge amounts of money in the form of advertising and media services to candidates, the FEC will not regulate political blogging. From the FEC statement: 'While the complaint asserts that DailyKos advocates for the election of Democrats for federal office, the commission has repeatedly stated that an entity that would otherwise qualify for the media exemption does not lose its eligibility because it features news or commentary lacking objectivity or expressly advocates in its editorial the election or defeat of a federal candidate.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What qualifies for a media exemption? (Score:2)
Re:What qualifies for a media exemption? (Score:4, Informative)
The key issues that the FEC looks at are as follows:
Is the organization in question owned or controlled by any "political party, political committee, or candidate" (these are defined under the regs). If it is owned by any of these, then it is considered an arm of that group and not "press".
If it is not owned by any of these, then the next question is whether the "major purpose [of the organization] is involvement in campaign activity". If the answer is yes, then it is considered a political committee (see above).
Note that campaign activity is specifically meant to be narrowly defined as involved in a federal election campaign. It does not encompass political activity broadly.
So as long as an organization publishing to the web cannot be considered owned or controlled by any political part, political committee, or candidate and its major purpose is not to be involved in campaign activity, then its protected from these regulations.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here.
Re:What qualifies for a media exemption? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given how influential Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" pamphlets were in spreading the movement towards the Revolution, I would think that one sided, heavy handed, idealogical rantings would be Constitutionally protected. DailyKos is the modern day equivalent of the political pamphlet, and should be protected as such. If there is going to be any kind of strong Democratic leadership/ideology to emerge places like the DailyKos are going to be important in sorting out a unified Democratic vision. Right now the only thing they have going for them is that they aren't the Republicans. That lack of cohesiveness and vision is how Kerry lost in 2004.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/mileston
Parent
Re:What qualifies for a media exemption? (Score:5, Interesting)
At some point in the muddied waters or tea leaves the government decides you're a business (say because you let an ad banner firm place ads on your site in order to defray the hosting cost, or say when you pass some number of daily readers, or say whatever, but definitely by the time you incorporate or get a business license.) This is an area the Internet has made difficult for the government and is another, broader issue entirely.
When that happens your company is categorized for a number of purposes, including taxes and business insurance. If you are a text/media content provider, then you are most likely some sort of publisher, which I think means for the FEC's purposes you are a media outlet, and thus in the same category as any other media outlet.
Besides which, the big boys selectively report and even endorse candidates. And given the economic pressure the newspapers are under, it won't be long before some of them have shrunk to the point that some former-individual-blog-turned-opinion-site (Drudge, anyone?) is bigger than them. Will there then be calls to strip that newspaper of their media credentials or FEC exemption?
Besides, many newspapers are divesting their printing press and contracting with a larger regional paper for printing. At what point is a paper no longer a paper?
Likewise, there are some individuals who have their own papers published (call them crackpots if you want, but remember that's how many of our more venerable papers started.)
How will you distinguish between "legitimate" media and the rest? Is it a worthy expenditure of government resources? Does it violate the rights of those determined not to be "press"?
The best solution is for the government to leave it alone and let the economy sort it out, which surprisingly enough is what the FEC chose to do. That's what we have a "free" market for, right? Oh, yeah it isn't free: it's mercantilism.
And until it isn't mercantilism we'll have people and companies calling for discrimination in order to protect larger businesses.
Parent
How long until they change their minds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How long until they change their minds? (Score:5, Informative)
In order to have any chance, third-parties need to get "first past the post" removed as the voting algorthm, and replaced with something like a Condorcet or even (bleh) IRV system.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Go with Proportional Representation, that will give you third-party representation. Then again, you could end up with some lunatic fringe parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You vote for who you least want in office. Like golf, the lowest score wins.
Make the bar to get on the ballet high enough to discourage lunatics (say 100K for a non-incumbent, 20K for past office holders of same level (state/federal/etc.), 10K for incumbents).
-nB
Also in the case of a presidential election (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, really, it's happened twice before.
Well when there's only two candidates, it is extremely likely one will get a majority of votes. Since there is an even number of electors it is possible for a split EC, but that's quite unlikely. However with a serious third contender, it becomes much more possible. The third contender doesn't have to be more popular than the two others, just popular enough to grab some electoral votes.
For example suppose you have a race with the typical Democrat and Republican, but also a non-crazy Libertarian (I know, seems to be an impossibility). The Republican is the more popular than the Democrat, but only by a small margin. Let's say it would work like the 2004 election and result in a 286-252 win for the Republican. However the Libertarian manages to woo some of the fiscal conservatives to his side instead. Not very many, but enough to win Arizona, Kentucky and South Dakota. Now instead it's a 267-252-19 setup. The Republican has the most votes, but it isn't enough. Nobody wins, and it goes to Congress to decide.
As such at a presidential level, it's extremely stacked for a two party system. On other levels where it's a pure popular, who ever gets the most gets the job system, it is easier and indeed third party candidates to win from time to time. But it's a real problem in the presidential election. I mean look at how wound up people got about a president winning the electoral vote without winning the popular vote (also has happened before). Think the fury a congressional election would generate.
Parent
Re:How long until they change their minds? (Score:4, Insightful)
It could be done, relatively peacefully, but only if a lot higher percentage of America knew and cared about the severe flaws in our voting system. If you could get the 36% of America that didn't vote in 2004 to actively express their dissatisfaction with our voting system, then it would become an issue would be addressed, eventually. But when that dissatisfaction manifests as voter apathy, well then the problems with our system are met with political apathy. As long as no politician can expect to win a Senate seat off of a campaign based in "Range Voting for a better USA" there will be no change.
Parent
Re:How long until they change their minds? (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest problem with third parties today other than finances is perception. People don't support third parties in any great numbers because all of the major third parties are out on the fringes of the political spectrum. Most people hang out in the political middle, so a 3rd party that caters to the far left (like the Greens) or the far right (like the Libertarians) aren't going to have a whole lot of luck winning elections on the national level. They can only win in localities where the population is heavily skewed toward one end of the political spectrum or the other.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead they would characterize themselves as in favor of both extreme economic freedom (a view usually associated with the far right) and extreme social/personal freedom (a view usually associated with the far left).
Hans
Re: (Score:2)
Sites with obvious political biases tend to be frequented only by people with similar political biases.
Well duh. That sorta stands to reason. I mean, you don't have people who hate Elmo going to Elmo fan sites very often do you? The only reason why a Republican would go to DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground would be for oposition research. It's not like they allow dissenting points of view posted there..and given that, you aren't going to attract and keep folks that haven't already swallowed the ideological koolaid. Lest anyone thinks I'm picking on Democrats, I believe that the FreeRepublic is also run
third parties and candidates (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the "spoiler" effect that put Bill Clinton into office in 1992 and George Bush into office in 2000. I find it hard to believe many people who voted for Nader in 2000 would have chosen Bush over Gore. Given the election was so close it's hard to argue against the stipulation "Ralph Nader elected George Bush".
In 2000 I was planning to vote for a third party candidate, I hadn't made up my mind but I was going to vote for either Harry Brown or Ralph Nader. However when I saw how close the election wa
Re:How long until they change their minds? (Score:4, Funny)
That's some cat! You'd think the first Mexican would probably stop its momentum.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Huh. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, speech can equal money. When working on a campaign, you not only purchase advertising (television, radio, etc.), you also try to get as much 'free' media as you can. I have held news conferences in front of the opposition HQ, in order to get my candidate on the front page of the newspaper. The more your name is mentioned, the better your chances are. Even negative publicity is still publicity.
I don't agree with the republican that submitted the complaint, but it will be interesting to see what ha
Re: (Score:2)
As far as KOS is concerned -- no we haven't seen the last of it. I expect the blogs to be regulated like PAC before too long. There are too many people with a lot of power who don't want some upstart blogger to have enough power to sway voters. They want to be able to control what's said, and the mainstream p
What everyone already knows about the internet (Score:3, Funny)
It's not for promoting candidates, it's for smearing their opponents.
Good news (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the bad feelings (and subsequent reactionary attempts at regulation) come from the fact that the conservative voter base tends to be a bit older and less Internet-savvy. There's no reason they couldn't have the conservative equivalent of DailyKos, but it just wouldn't get read as much. So to conservatives it feels like there's an unfair advantage and that bloggers should follow the same rules as those who advertise on the Marconi Wireless to "level the playing field." But really, the right reaction would be to educate their voter base on this great new medium. I don't know if it would work, but I'm glad this sense of unfairness didn't result in opinion and discourse being subjected to the same regulations as advertising and fund raising. They're very different, and the latter two become empty manipulation without the first two.
When this first came up, I figured it was a lock that bloggers would get nailed (the FEC has a very colorful history of not understanding when technology is good and when technology is bad).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Free Republic? Little Green Footballs? WorldNetDaily?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note: I am a die-hard liberal. But, I wouldn't confuse LGF, Michelle Malkin or World Net Dailys content with Kos. While Kos frequently rips on the opposition (just like the above sites) Kos also actively tries to organize the liberal base. He lists potential democratic candidates in each congressional district and puts in requests for fundraising and volunteers. In 2006, he was actively pushing for volunteers for the conservative democrats that won seats in North Carolina and other states.
That is very
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, not one of nearly 200 comments even ponders whether this was imperfect use of English, from a non-native speaker... instead, no, he must be a Nazi. A "9/11 denier".
What a bunch of moronic pond scum.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Heaven knows I'll probably end up voting for her this go-around, but when it comes to technology and censorship, there's no political party (that has a chance of winning) that aligns with the /.-mindset.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good news (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking as a former Republican (and still a conservative), I think this came up for two reasons.
Why is this not YRO? (Score:2)
Freedom of Expression (Score:2)
in-kind service? (Score:2)
Which seems to imply that if Kos had provided an in-kind service the ruling may have been different.
Also, from the FEC press release:
I'm still waiting on one big political website (Score:2)
Look up the diaries on DailyKos (Score:2)
Media exemption? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does the "media" get an exemption? They have biases and vested interests. Freedom speech and the press is supposed to be for everyone, not just selected people who get "exemptions".
Right on. (Score:2)
Looming double-standard? (Score:2)
Hmm...let's see if they'll apply this to talk radio as well.
Here, let me re-slant that for you: (Score:3, Interesting)
Troll? Are you kidding me? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect if the DailyKos is receiving actual money from it's candidates, it's no longer exempt.
What would have clearly moved this out of the troll category is some substantiation to the claim that this is a paid advertiser, not a volunteer. Plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum believe
Re:Correction that Websense should have given (Score:2)
attack Kos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fox's second most popular show is Hannity and Colmes. Calling it a liberal versus conservative show Fox's laughable disinformation.
Shawn Hannity is a loud-mouthed arch-conserative; Colms is a moderate. ("I think I'm quite moderate" - Alan Colmes to USA Today, 2/1/95 [fair.org]). Or to paragraph Al Frankin, "Image a game of political see-saw with one person sitting on the far right end
Mod Parent Up... (Score:4, Interesting)
Partisanship, Fox-hatred and left v. right wing BS arguments aside, at least Fox News does go out of their way to provide two opposing viewpoints, and it seems rather popular. Sure, folks will immediately scream about Colmes' "moderate" tag, but honestly, that's nothing more than spin on Colmes' part (so as to paint his opposite as "extreme").
I have yet to see a credible truly-moderate opinionator (why? because 'beige' simply doesn't attract the attention that red or blue does, ne?) So please, let's dispense with any such notion that Colmes (or Kos, or whomever of any political stripe) is "moderate" - it's a strawman argument, to put it charitably.
Kos is nothing more than a prettified version of the Democratic Underground, IMHO. I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of left-leaning money being fed to his site, just as I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of right-leaning money being fed to his opposite counterparts' sites.
Both sides have their shills; both sites exist to feed the confirmation biases of their respective True Believers(TM, pat. pending).
That said, I wish everyone luck in removing the political money-laundering that accompanies sites like Kos. His income (again, like that from various others of either side) is likely funneled through a series of front organizations and companies who essentially parallel a given party's agendae (e.g. George Soros' funding of various 'grass-roots' events).
If you want to seriously remove political money from such events, then have the gov't set up a series of servers, where any political party can have equal bandwidth and space to proclaim whatever political theories turn them on (in a limited but equally accessible set of formats - text and image/multimedia files under a certain size, ferinstance). Sort of like a "Speakers' Corner" of sorts. It's not like they can't afford it or anything.
Parent
Re:Mod Parent Up... (Score:4, Informative)
This is bull shit of the most dangerous kind. It was Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister, who said that the key to a successful propaganda campaign is to give the appearance of diversity, while at the same time making sure that all media venues convey the same basic message. This is the essence of framing the debate [wikipedia.org]. You take a moderate, call him a liberal, and voilà - you've manufactured diversity where, in fact, none exists. Meanwhile, people who truly disagree never get heard. Nor is this just an accident. They intentionally select weak voiced, barely (if at all) left-of-center people.
But don't take my word for it. Just read the transcript from Outfoxed [outfoxed.org]. According to former Fox News producer Clara Frenk: And the first thing that I noticed was that I recognized all of the conservatives who were in the roster. They were very well known people who had come from, you know, talk radio or from some sort of political background, and so I knew all of those people, and they were very, very strong people... But when I looked at the liberal roster, there was only one person's name who I recognize, which I recognized, and that was Bob Shrum, who is a very well known speechwriter and political consultant in Washington. The other ones, though, were people I had never heard of. My entire background was in politics and political journalism, so I knew pretty much all the players in D.C. and I had never heard of these people... A lot of the times the liberals that they get to appear on are either, you know, faux-liberals, like, I would use Susan Estrich as an example of that, a person who was brought on, who essentially agrees with the person on the right in a lot of cases."
Parent
Re:This cuts both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They make an effort to appear non-partisan. That's true. But there's no way an objective observer would think they actually are. Last election cycle the non-Fox networks pulled out all the stops for Kerry. And it's true the CBS story is a rare occurrence, but only in that they were caught.
I think this is all a question of perspective. There's no way you could ever
Re: (Score:3, Informative)