Screech Kennedy and "Free Speech"
I don't know where to start with all this Kennedy blog bullshit. H.R. 1606 was not written to protect 99.995% of bloggers out there; they are protected by free speech and will never be regulated by the FEC. Even blogs that are obvious shills for the MN and National GOP (MDE, KvM, etc.) won't ever be regulated because they are run by individuals and are not affiliated with federal campaigns, parties, corporations and interest groups which are and should be regulated.
We all know that opponents of any kind of campaign finance regulation use "free speech" as their justification as to why corporations should be able to give millions of dollars directly to candidates. But as a society (and the courts have held this up), we value elections that are free of the appearance of corruption. This is why there are limits on what individuals can give to campaigns, because unregulated political contributions can give the appearance of corruption as well as undermine the faith in the public of our elective system. The internet is the next phase of political communication, and we need to be cautious. Just like on television, radio, and other forms of media, we need to have accountability when it comes to spending large amounts of money trying to affect the outcomes of elections.
Free speech is not at issue here, we're talking about opponents of campaign finance reform trying to undo decades of progress when it comes to the internet. The bill, as it stood unmodified, would allow any corporation, interest group or political party to say spend $50 million on an e-mail and online advertising campaign without any sort of disclaimer, and could frankly act directly on behalf of a candidate. The FEC does not and will not regulate individuals and their right to unlimited political speech, including anonymous political speech.
Supporting this bill would be to say that MoveOn.org should have been able to send e-mails to every voter in America telling them to vote for John Kerry, and not even say who was paying for the e-mail. We don't allow them to do that through the mail or on TV, but we should allow them to do it on the internet? That's what supporters of this bill wanted, I guess, otherwise they would have regulated it.
The internet is the future of campaigns in this country, and campaign finance reform opponents, like Screech Kennedy, want to open up the internet to the heydays of "soft money" influence that we all loved so much. It isn't about free speech for bloggers, it is about accountability for campaigns, corporations and interest groups that should be held accountable for the sake of public faith in the system.
We all know that opponents of any kind of campaign finance regulation use "free speech" as their justification as to why corporations should be able to give millions of dollars directly to candidates. But as a society (and the courts have held this up), we value elections that are free of the appearance of corruption. This is why there are limits on what individuals can give to campaigns, because unregulated political contributions can give the appearance of corruption as well as undermine the faith in the public of our elective system. The internet is the next phase of political communication, and we need to be cautious. Just like on television, radio, and other forms of media, we need to have accountability when it comes to spending large amounts of money trying to affect the outcomes of elections.
Free speech is not at issue here, we're talking about opponents of campaign finance reform trying to undo decades of progress when it comes to the internet. The bill, as it stood unmodified, would allow any corporation, interest group or political party to say spend $50 million on an e-mail and online advertising campaign without any sort of disclaimer, and could frankly act directly on behalf of a candidate. The FEC does not and will not regulate individuals and their right to unlimited political speech, including anonymous political speech.
Supporting this bill would be to say that MoveOn.org should have been able to send e-mails to every voter in America telling them to vote for John Kerry, and not even say who was paying for the e-mail. We don't allow them to do that through the mail or on TV, but we should allow them to do it on the internet? That's what supporters of this bill wanted, I guess, otherwise they would have regulated it.
The internet is the future of campaigns in this country, and campaign finance reform opponents, like Screech Kennedy, want to open up the internet to the heydays of "soft money" influence that we all loved so much. It isn't about free speech for bloggers, it is about accountability for campaigns, corporations and interest groups that should be held accountable for the sake of public faith in the system.
