Internet Bill Could Hurt Democratic Underground

[Eric J in MN]

Congressman Tom Allen (D-Maine) is sponsoring a bill to regulate political websites, HR 4900.

The bill has a contradiction which shows why it should NOT be passed.

Section 4 requires political websites which cost over $10,000/year to be registered as "political committees."

Section 5 refers to a media exemption for online discussions of "stories and commentaries appearing in the media."

How is someone who runs a blog or a message-board which costs over $10,000 supposed to know if he has to register as a political committee?

If section 4 were struck from the bill, then I would probably support it.

But I oppose a bill which says that running a political website which costs over $10,000 sometimes mean you have to register with the federal government, and sometimes not. You'll find out in which category your website falls after you're led away in handcuffs.

All political websites should get the media exemption from campaign finance laws. All newspapers, radio stations, and TV channels already get the media exemption. Fox News doesn't have to register, and neither should the Daily Kos.

The owner of DU should be able to focus on providing us with service, and not on whether he has to register as a political committee.

Please contact your Congressperson against HR 4900.

Above from
http://www.speakspeak.org/speak-blog/2006/03/18/contradiction-in-internet-regulation-bill/

[MADem]

1. I imagine Skinner, et. al, are aware of this

I'm hoping that they weigh in with their thoughts. I honestly have skimmed and seen a few mentions of this, here and there, but have not had time to peruse details.

[rooboy]

2. This is bullshit.

What if DU was to pass its domain over to somebody in another country to host and manage? The US government has no jurisdiction over it whatsoever - in fact, they may be in breach of trade treaties by trying to ban people from accessing its content.

[Teaser]

3. This is all over DailyKos

If you haven't called your rep about this yet, you are going to regret it when we can't raise money for political figures anymore.

[acmejack]

4. Common Cause supports HR 4900

snip>
The Center for Democracy & Technology has been fighting for almost 10 years to limit the impact of campaign finance laws on political speech online. The CDT was the initial advocate of the approach that Reps. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) and Tom Allen (D-Maine) have taken in H.R. 4900, an approach we believe offers far greater protection for Web loggers and individual speakers on the Internet than does H.R. 1606, introduced by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas).

Although we appreciate the intention behind the Hensarling bill, that bill simultaneously does too little and too much.It does too little because it addresses only the narrow question raised by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act about the application of ''public communications'' rules to the Internet. At the same time, it completely ignores the regulation of the Internet that predated BCRA in the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Even if H.R. 1606 were enacted, bloggers and individual speakers on the Internet still would face burdensome requirements under FECA to (a) file reports on expenditures with the Federal Election Commission, (b) publicly post their home addresses when they advocate on behalf of a candidate, and (c) submit to onerous ''political committee'' regulation if two or more bloggers or speakers collaborate on a Web site. Moreover, H.R. 1606 is silent on whether the ''media exemption'' (the one that protects news outlets from regulation) can apply to bloggers and other online publications.

In sharp contrast, the bill by Bass and Allen addresses all of these points, and it makes crystal clear that 99 percent of bloggers and other individual speakers on the Internet will be free from all campaign finance regulation.

http://www.commonblog.com/

Public Citizen Supports HR 4900

snip>
While the House yesterday delayed consideration of H.R. 1606, legislation that would open huge soft money loopholes in the campaign finance laws, our organizations will continue to work hard to defeat this legislation.

Our organizations strongly support H.R.4900, the ''Internet Free Speech Protection Act of 2006,'' introduced by Representatives Tom Allen (D-ME) and Charles Bass (R-NH), and we will fight to pass this proposal in the House and in the Senate.

We believe H.R. 4900 will provide appropriate broad protections to the Internet community without opening gaping soft money loopholes in the campaign finance laws.

Our organizations also strongly oppose H.R. 1606 and we will similarly fight to defeat this legislation in the House and in the Senate.

http://www.cleanupwashington.org/cfr/page.cfm?pageid=87

Kos doesn't!

snip>
To make sure interested people have a complete view of the various alternatives here, it should be noted that, from the standpoint of the political party committees, HR 4900 is MUCH WORSE than the FEC's proposed regulations.

With respect to the ability of political party committees at all levels to use the Internet, the proposed FEC rules would NOT treat as "public communications" anything posted on a party's own website-only banner advertising and postings purchased on some other entity's website.

But the CDT proposal (HR 4900) would treat ALL political party internet communications as "public communications" -- greatly hurting if not killing the ability of state party committees, in particular, to use this critical tool for grass roots organizing. In other words, under this bill, if a state Democratic party merely runs a listing of its officeholders or candidates, or posts a greeting from a Member of Congress who is running for re-election, under this bill the state party would need to worry about worry what they're saying, what kind of money they're using, etc-a total nightmare-because everything, from dollar one, they say on the web would be automatically a "public communication" under HR 4900. Anything a party committee says on the internet that promotes, supports, attacks or opposes a federal candidate automatically becomes "federal election activity". Every state party would have to meticulously track what portion of the costs of their website would need to be tracked and reported as an in-kind contribution to federal candidates <...>

Further, a party committee's e-mails to its own supporters would now all be "public communications"-raising all of these same issues and complications.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/15/16415/5712

[Eric J in MN]

7. "99 percent of bloggers" would be exempt according to CDT.

100 percent of bloggers should be exempt. If they strike section 4 and make 100 percent exempt, I may support HR 4900.

Kos shouldn't have to register as a "political committee" just like Fox News doesn't have to register as a political committee.

[bluerum]

5. To take that a step further - what if DU was to re-configure itself

so that it was a "distributed site" - over several servers in several states or countries each costing less than $10,000 a year to operate.

[still_one]

6. I woulnd't support it under any circumstances

I want the governments hands OFF THE INTERNET. They have already screwed up the newspapers and television reporting by creating huge corporate monopolies, and even though they are suppossed to be the public airwaves, the little guy is having a very hard time of it. They are even trying to take what little band width is available from the exisiting HAMS

No I want the government out of ANY involvement with internet web sites. They are already trying to get information on users from google and other search engines with the pretense that it is to fight porn, but I do NOT trust the government, and especially after seeing what the Democrats have done the last six years, I wouldn't trust them either

Look what they did When Russ Feingold introduced a censure resolution for bush violating the FISA act, they ran for the hills

Either the Democrats should respect our freedoms, and fight for seperation of powers, or they should find another occupation so someone else who believes in Democratic values will

IF THEY WANT TO DO CAMPAIGN REFORM GET RID OF ALL LOBBYISTS, AND ONLY ALLOW PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS

Both sides will never allow that to happen though

[Eric J in MN]

10. I also want full public funding of campaigns.

Give tax-money to Congressional candidates based on their party's performance in the district in the last election. No private donations.

[still_one]

13. I agree, and get rid of all the lobbists up in Washington

we can dream, but I don't think it is going to happen

[creeksneakers2]

8. The Internet should always be a free speech zone

Its possible for money to buy a monopoly of TV or radio or newspaper coverage. Its not possible on the net.

I thought and still think that the left made a huge mistake by backing campaign finance reform. The GOP is going after the 527s as well as the net. When we let lawyers decide who can publish what the left will be stamped out. The right has 100 lawyers for every one the left has.

[Eric J in MN]

9. Since the definition of a political committee should be addressed,

instead of dropping Section 4, it would be better to change it to allow unlimited spending on websites wihout registering.

[1932]

11. Why register the public square?

Regulate the people who get paid to post (by requiring candidates to disclose where their money goes). But why put restrictions on the places people go to talk when those places are open to everyone?

[0007]

12. Argh! Speak up DUers, this is one we gotta fight. n/t