FEC Will Not Regulate Political Blogging 171
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.'"
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: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.
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".
This cuts both ways (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How long until they change their minds? (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:This cuts both ways (Score:1, Insightful)
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
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.
Re:Good news (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking as a former Republican (and still a conservative), I think this came up for two reasons.
Having said that let me also say this is a good decision. As far as I know, this campaign finance stuff all started as a reaction to Watergate, but it's done nothing but make the situation worse. What we have now is a system where you can legally bribe a congressman through campaign donations, but you can't buy a political ad within six months of an election without going through a mountain of paperwork. The whole law should be scrapped. Should have been, in fact, thrown out by the courts.
I find abhorrent the idea one should have to register with the government before venturing an opinion on politics.
Re:This cuts both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This cuts both ways (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 convince me NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and virtually all the print media don't have a leftward bias. I can see it for myself. But that's the difference - I'm willing to admit Fox has a rightward bias, whereas the fact that the rest electronic media establishment is overwhelmingly liberal is somehow news to people on the left.
Bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)