Defeat for the Online Freedom of Speech Act

After a good amount of debate, both in the press and on the floor of the US House of Representatives, HR 1606 (otherwise known as the Online Freedom of Speech Act) was voted down last Wednesday by a vote of 225-182. Most Democrats were opposed and most Republicans were in favor, but it was not a strict party-line vote.

I've dealt with this topic before, favoring greater freedom for bloggers when it comes to commenting on political campaigns. Nevertheless, I feel this is a victory for bloggers--if there's anything worse than a government legislating something it shouldn't, it's government doing so with a terribly written law.

The relevant text of HR 1606 is simply

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.

For reference, 2 U.S.C. 431(22) currently reads

The term “public communication” means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.

All these things are items a campaign can, and will, spend large quantities of money on, and the Internet fits right in here. In the coming years, we're certain to see a more involved web presence by candidates--with lots of streaming video, text RSS feeds, and podcasts--and these expenditures should (to be consistent with the spirit of current campaign-finance laws) should be regulated. But HR 1606, in its attempt to leave the Internet as some kind of virgin frontier, would give candidates for federal office an enormous loophole to push unregulated contributions through.

Indeed, I don't think the bill's sponsors have any real idea where the true problem lies: it's not in 2 U.S.C. 431(22), but in 2 U.S.C. 431(17) and other sections in which the rather hazily considered "independent expenditures" are covered. 2 U.S.C. 434(c), for example, requires any independent amounts exceeding $250 to be reported; but as previous history has shown, campaign-finance officials may consider the cost of your computer and your internet connection in this regard. What about your time? The electricity in your house?

I'm afraid this is something that is going to be sorted out in the courts, to no one's satisfaction. But the idea that I can be accused of carrying on "federal election activity" because of statements I make in my blog, and then having to bear the burden of proving that someone's idea of "expenditures" are "independent" from a candidate's campaign...goes beyond distasteful into the odious.

Tags: Campaign Finance, Blogs, Blogging, Weblog, 1606, Congress