COME TOGETHER, RIGHT NOW, OVER THIS
by
Ryan Oddey

It is rare when a situation arises involving politics that people from both sides of the aisle agree on. In spite of that, I believe that the upcoming situation involving Election Law and how it relates to the Internet will be a cause in which many bloggers from all walks of life will find themselves on the same side. The reason for this rare showing of unity has less to do with politics and more to do with something we all cherish: Freedom.

A Recent Interview by Brad Smith has caused some in the Blogging world to become concerned about the future of the internet. Smith, who is one of the six commissioners on the Federal Elections Commission, has decided that a controversial court decision made in 2002 regarding campaign finance law should be applied to the internet.

The law that was adopted in 2002 pretty much put a limit on media (TV, Radio, Mailing Lists, etc) that is done in conjunction with Political Campaigns. At the time this law was adopted, the FEC voted to 4-2 to exclude the internet from this new form of regulation. However, last Fall U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kelley ruled that the FEC's decision to exclude the internet from these regulations severely undermines the intent of the campaign finance law.

So, now that Kollar-Kelley has made that ruling, lets examine some of the changes Brad Smith has talked about. Smith wants to assign a value to links on personal pages that direct someone towards a politician. He feels that this is important, because if an individual has already contributed the legal maximum amount to a campaign their website would be in violation of campaign finance law.

You may be wondering just how much a website is worth, well, Smith has a plan for calculating that too. Smith says "Design fees, that sort of thing." Granted, I can not totally critique Smith's plan because I do not know the specifics of "that sort of thing" but I do understand a thing about design fees. However, I pose this question, what if you designed your own site, or the site was designed for free?

As for the individual links that bring you to a politicians website, Smith plans on that being quite expensive when he uses the following logic. Consider this:

"Corporations aren't allowed to donate to campaigns. Suppose a corporation devotes 20 minutes of a secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign raises $35,000. Do we value the violation on the amount of corporate resources actually spent, maybe $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission has usually taken the view that we value it by the amount raised. It's still going to be difficult to value the link, but the value of the link will go up very quickly."

Ok, so how about instead of using a link, we just post website addresses. Should the viewer of the website wish to view any of the web addresses posted, they will need to put the web address into their web browser on their own.

You see, Smith thinks that the judges decision means this:


"The judge's decision is in no way limited to ads. She says that any coordinated activity over the Internet would need to be regulated, as a minimum. The problem with coordinated activity over the Internet is that it will strike, as a minimum, Internet reporting services." So a fine start up website such as www.ThatsAnotherFineMess.com would fall under this category since we read the news and report what we feel is useful information.

We have hope, because the internet currently falls under the press exemption. However, the debate over whether or not the internet should fall under the press exemption is approaching the foreground of this debate.

I believe that the internet is the most open form of media. Average citizens, such as myself and countless others, do not have the pull to have our own section in a news paper or our own talk show on a cable news network. However, we do have the resources to go online and find a way to post our political opinions. Some of us own a website, some of us contribute to a website, while others find a forum where they can engage in political debate. The internet opens people up to a wide range of opinions that they would otherwise not hear. Why are people like Bradley Smith so intent on undoing a good thing?

Yes, both parties take advantage of the internet loophole, but if that is the worst thing that happens I think it should be allowed so average citizens continue to have access to view and voice different opinions. If Smith is able to regulate the internet he will silence countless voices that are a valuable part of the blogging community and the political scene at large.

It does not matter if you are a Democrat, a Republican, or anything else, limiting free speech on the internet, which is what Brad Smith is trying to do, is totally and completely nightmarish. We can't all own a newspaper company, we can't all own a television station, but so many of us own a computer. The internet gives us the forum to spout of our ideals and engage in the discussions that we so cherish. It must be protected.

Let us not forget that the United States does not own the internet. Yes, the government can monitor campaign donations from abroad, but how is someone like Brad Smith going to tell some person in France that they have to shut down their website because it is in violation of United States Election law simply because it has a link to a certain candidate? What is your plan to do when that person in France tells you to buzz off because you don't own the internet? Do you censor him? Do you block American access to all foreign based web sites that contain information about political candidates?

Hmmm, a country that censors all websites based in foreign nations that contain any political information...I've heard of this before.......oh yeah, China, Cuba, North Korea. We won the Cold War Mr. Smith, why must we follow the lead of Communist Nations?

This is a serious problem, and it is perhaps the one thing that most bloggers can agree on. It does not matter what side of the aisle you sit on, I am willing to bet you want to keep the internet free so we can all continue to post our rants, opinions, and any other important information we feel like sharing. With so many of us using the internet to raise public awareness about the issues and share our differing opinions I only have one final question for Brad Smith.

WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?