Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Regulating the "internet"
Posted by: McQ on Monday, March 21, 2005

The Washington Post reports, the plan by the FEC to implement just such regulation continues to move forward thanks to McCain-Finegold and a lost lawsuit:

"We are almost certainly going to move from an environment in which the Internet was per se not regulated to where it is going to be regulated in some part," said FEC Commissioner David M. Mason, a Republican. "That shift has huge significance because it means that people who are conducting political activity on the Internet are suddenly going to have to worry about or at least be conscious of certain legal distinctions and lines they didn't used to have to worry about."

When this all began,  the real concern, of course,  was how this was going to pertain to blogs.  The good news is that since Bradley Smith first made his remarks concerning the FEC's possible plans to regulate bloggers, there's been some severe heat generated at all levels inside and outside of government. 

His [Smith's] comments quickly ricocheted across the Web, as bloggers began wondering if they might have to bone up on election law. Two of the authors of the campaign finance legislation, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) issued a joint statement denouncing Smith's remarks, saying they would "whip up baseless fears." A few prominent online political strategists and bloggers sent a letter recently to the FEC, urging it not to restrict unpaid political activities on the Internet. Their letter has since been endorsed by more than 2,500 other supporters. Republican Commissioner Michael E. Toner said he has begun receiving "very heated" e-mails on the issue.

You may recall that little brouhaha that set the pirate flags of anarchy flying on blogs everywhere.  Well, it appears the heat has had the desired effect.  The "regulation of the internet" is being refocused into a more tight pattern:

Four commissioners—Democrats Scott E. Thomas and Ellen L. Weintraub, along with Toner and Mason—said in interviews that they oppose regulating independent bloggers.

"I really see no appetite at the agency for regulating bloggers," Weintraub said. "I would be very, very surprised if that was the result."

She said the commission would likely focus on other issues, such as whether to subject expenditures on Internet ad campaigns to the agency's contribution rules. The FEC requires campaign supporters who spend money on political ads in coordination with a candidate to report those expenses to the government and subjects them to contribution limits—but the rules apply only to offline ads. So if, for example, a campaign supporter pays for an ad in the Los Angeles Times at the request of a candidate, that expenditure must be reported and counted against those limits. But if the supporter pays for an ad on the Los Angeles Times's Web site, it does not.

They have no appetite for regulating bloggers because they'd never, ever succeed in doing so. It would begin an on-line insurgency which would completely overwhelm them and would demonstrate to all their total inability to enforce their regulation.  Most agencies don't want unenforceable regulations.  It makes them look inept.  However, a narrower focus, such as "internet ad campaigns" is something they have some possibility of actually regulating, thus the shift in focus. 

But here's a question for you, considering this "new" focus on regulating "internet ads" for a candidates ... instead of placing the ad on the LA Times website, what if they place it on the UK Guardian's site?  Or some Canadian site heavily visited by folks in the US?  What will the FEC do then?

Or better asked, what can they do?

As for foreign web sites, sounds like the beginnings of an outsourced cottage industry, doesn't it?  Another possible unintended consequence of this abysmal law we know as McCain-Feingold.

Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Just four little words you’ve gotta keep repeating over and over, guys: SHOW ME THE MONEY! Expose McCain-Feingold for the awful piece of astroturfed legislation it is and watch all support for it dissolve. Bloggers have it in their power to make this thing a political tarbaby, and one would think that this is a cause that both sides of the aisle could get on board with. I mean for crying out loud, it’s got special interests artificially engineering a restriction on free speeach! This is a silver-platter issue that Americans of both parties would take umbrage to, but most probably don’t even know about it. It’s a made issue, all it needs is noise.
Written By: Matt McIntosh

Thanks McQ,

This has all the makings of a delicious revolution. They will be unable to  administer such regulation fairly or not. They’ll generate more dissenting traffic than they now envision, and I for one, welcome such dumb-ass moves by the government. BCFR was a joke to start with even if you only look at the absurd 527 stuff which surfaced in the last election.

All we’ll need are some Lebanese protest chicks and "all their rules are belong to us". Regards,

Written By: Abu Qa’Qa
URL: http://
This does not completely empty the can of worms which foreign campaign contributions via blogging represent.
Written By: triticale
Written By: sadf
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks