EchoDitto Blog

Congress and the Blogs

March 14, 2006 - 10:43am

There is something happening this week in Congress (I know, hard to believe). A bill call HR 1606 is coming up for a vote on Wednesday. The bill is designed to (a) protect bloggers and online political activity and (b) open large loop-holes in campaign finance law. I'm all for (a) - protecting online political activity. As for (b), I'm pretty sure that allowing more big money into the system is a bad idea - besides the obvious reasons (influence peddling) the major donor dilutes the power of the small donor. My work on the Dean campaign was about the triumph of citizens, about how if everyone participated we could be more powerful than a few large, wealthy interests.

Strangely enough, despite Markos' excellent book decrying the culture of money and corruption in Washington, DC, DailyKos persists in supporting HR 1606 - which clearly opens campaign finance loopholes that McCain-Feingold sought to close. I understand protecting online activity, especially blogging and political speech - but there is a bill that does just that, that everyone agrees is a good bill, that does NOT open loopholes in the Big Money game. I'm asking all bloggers out there to support the new bill (HR 4900), based on work done by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), which protects bloggers and online activity but doesn't do any damage to our already fragile campaign finance laws.

( categories: Politics )

The problem with 4900 is simple - it allows the FEC to get into the business of defining blog posts and images (whether they are ads or not) as "in kind" contributions. Do you really want to go into an election season with the FEC determining, on a site by site basis, the in kind value of a JPG? What basis will they use? Google pagerank? Back links? As calculated by which search engine?

4900 will create huge piles of lawsuits, and stifle political discussion.

Submitted by James Robertson on March 14, 2006 - 1:14pm.

Once you start thinking about campaign finance enough, it becomes clear that one cannot prevent rich people from having a louder voice without infringing on the first amendment. The very idea of "freedom of the press" is that rich people are allowed to amplify their thoughts beyond what others can afford. Do you have any idea how expensive a press was in the 1780s? Anyway, of all the places where money can amplify a voice, it is hardest online.

Submitted by Ryan on March 14, 2006 - 1:29pm.