Saturday, March 26, 2005

There is a lot fo talk in the blogosphere about the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act and how the FEC is now saying that they may be required to extend that laws provisions to the internet. Needless to say, this scares a lot of people, seeing as such an extension would be a clear violation of freedom of speech, yet at the same time, the Supreme Court approved the law and is unlikely to strike it down, so if the FEC goes ahead with the internet thing, it could be really bad for bloggers and grass-roots internet politics. Amoing other things, I would not be able to link to a candidate's website.

Now it turns out that the supposedly huge number of people who were pushing for campaign finance reform int he first place was an illusion. The head of the Pew Reseacrh Center admitted such in an interview, saying that they created the illusion of mass numbers of people in favor of reform by paying millions to various media outlets like NPR to do stories on reform. Congress-people saw all this attention and figured people were really in favor, and so it passed. And how did it get through the Supreme Court? Well hearsay has it that Pew supplied them with a whole lot of "facts" and statistics that were simply not true. The SCOTUS can only make decisions based ont he information they have at hand, and since they were given incorrect information, they made a bad decision, one which is unlikely to be changed anytime soon.

To paraphrase one blogger's words (I forget who is was), we'll stop blogging when they pry the keyboards from our cold, dead fingers. Seriously, this is a very important issue, one that strikes at the heart of the Constitution. Since much of mainstream media, though not all, of course, are not big fans of blogging, they won't be on our side. Bloggers are primarily conservative-leaning, at least the more popular ones, and even John Kerry has gone on the attack, asking what can be done about people who keep bringing up dead issues and causing problems (John, Vietnam would have been a dead issue if you'd left it there, you opened yourself up to attack). All signs point to a coming crackdown, though whether it be soon, or years from now, who knows.

What I do know is that I won't be cowed, and neither will a lot of bloggers. If they want to arrest me and hundreds of others for linking to a campaign site, so be it. In this, our most fundamental right as citizens of a free country, I will take a stand. If they crack down, we will begin to see a huge number of civil disobediance cases, more than anytime since the 60's, and I will be right there with them. I hope it doesn't come to that, but I will stand up for my beliefs.

5 Comments:

At 2:37 PM, Scott said...

I find it very difficult to believe that anybody is going to try to pull your keyboard from your cold dead fingers. More likely noone with any real importance cares that much. McCain-Feingold was about money, though. Since you're using Blogger, which is free, you don't seem to have a lot of cash tied up in this conservative venture you've got going.
Anyway - I think McCain-Feingold is a good thing. It basically said (although it took a little while for people to figure this out and to the GOP's chagrin, liberals seem to have figured it out first) that you can spend as much money on a campaign as you want, as long as you don't collaborate with the official campaign itself. Power to the people! What could a conservative hate about this? You can contribute $2000 to Bush's official campaign and then turn around and spend $2 million any way you see fit. That's liberty - that's freedom of speech - that's democracy! And it still keeps a wall between the candidate and the big money, which lessens the chances of "special interests" from buying their way into influence.
So if your blog cost more than $2000 to finance, you may run into trouble linking yourself with the official campaign. But a free website? Add your domain at $35/year and count that as your official contribution to the Bush campaign and happy blogging.

 
At 3:49 PM, Ben said...

What a ridiculous bunch of BS. Keeping special interests from influencing campaigns is exactly what McCain-Feingold does not do. Moveon.org, for instance, was able to use the new rules to basically hijack the Democratic Party and now Howard Dean dances to their tune.

As far as the blogs go, the fact is that this gives politicians the power to say what I can and cannot say. To say, as you do, that "More likely noone with any real importance cares that much" is tantamount to people in Nazi Germany saying "They'd never come for me, it's just about the Jews." You are giving politicians free reign to do whatever the hell they want, and while nothing bad may happen anytime soon, the door is open, and if a door is open, eventually a politician will walk through it.

I suppose you're in favor of hate speech laws, too. Another way to circumvent the 1st ammendment. What is up with people on the left always wanting to rewrite the constitution?

 
At 10:32 AM, Scott said...

     You are so wrong in so many ways. Moveon.org, as much as you may detest them, is not a "special interest group". It is quite literally a grass-roots organization supported by millions of individuals (yes, millions). Some of them happen to be quite rich, the ones you hear about in the news (Soros), but the vast majority are average and probably donate $10 here or $50 there.
     Special Interest Groups, on the other hand, usually have one main issue which they have as their raison d'etre, like a group of sugar farmers in Florida or the AARP. And even those groups are composed of individuals. What has changed is that these groups no longer have direct access to candidates. They can only try to sell their ideas in the public arena. They are not allowed to meet or influence candidates behind closed doors. That is McCain-Feingold.
     And as you've brilliantly deduced, I am in favor of hate-speech laws. I am aware that they rub up against the 1st amendment, but let me ask you - how do you feel about the right of Arab sympathisers to say whatever they want in the US in public? To praise Al-Quaida or Saddam? Many liberals would give their lives to protect people's freedoms to say what they want. Hate speech, though, isn't protected political speech. It's something like the guy yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or more like somebody making a threat to intimidate someone else. Legal: "I hate Jews" Illegal: "I will kill you if you're Jewish"

 
At 10:32 AM, Scott said...

Wait a second - what the hell does McCain-Feingold have to do with hate-speech laws anyway? Where do you come up with these non-sequitors?

 
At 8:54 AM, Ben said...

Because they both create restrictions on free speech, though I admit the hate speech stuff is a far worse violation of the first amendment.

Called in sick yesterday, have a lot of work to do, so I'm not responding in full.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home