More Blogs and BCRA
It was with some amusement that I learned that Trevor Potter, a former attorney in the Reagan Justice Department and former Chairman of the FEC, and now head of the Campaign Legal Center, has r
eleased a statement accusing Bradley
Smith of trying to scare and rouse the blogosphere with hyperbolic and untrue threats to the 1st Amendments.
Now here's the part that's laughable:
These laws are decidedly NOT aimed at online press, commentary or blogs, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was carefully drafted to exclude them. The FEC has now been asked to initiate a rulemaking to work out how to deal with different kinds of Internet political expenditures, and there will be plenty of opportunity for public commentary. The Commission's duty then will be to distinguish candidate and party expenditures, and coordinated independent expenditures, on the Internet (which should be subject to campaign finance law like any other expenditures) from activity by bloggers, Internet news services and citizens acting on their own that should remain unregulated, free and robust.
Except that it wasn't. There was
no mention of them being exempted in any form. The only thing carefully constructed was that throughout the BCRA were various provisions throughout to
offer alternatives in the event a specific portion was found unconstitutional.
Here's the other thing about the laughable notion of "carefully drafted." Then why does the FEC need to figure out how to interpret them? If this country has learned anything from the FCC, Janet Jackson and obscenity on TV and radio in the last couple of years; it's that when you have the vague laws that are thrown to a non-elected agency for interpretation and enforcement you don't know what will happen.
As for Potter, I recalled his name from one instance where he actively
sought broad interpretation of the BCRA:
...a former FEC commissioner who advised McCain during the debate in Congress, urged commissioners for a broad interpretation of one provision regulating how much money members of Congress can raise through their leadership political action committees. Lawmakers use such PACs to raise money for fellow party members' campaigns.
Redstate.org has some other Potter goodies about reporting requirements for online advocacy or defeat of candidates. Trust me, the
reporting forms can be real headaches.
You can also read a transcript of another Bradley Smith interview.
Part I and
Part II.
Potter is right about one thing. That Smith did go public to get the attention of bloggers, and force some action. Good. Now we are paying attention, once more. This is the time -- in between the federal elections -- when the real rulemaking restrictions occur.
If These Two Can't Make It Work...
What hope do the
rest of us have?
Hollywood star Charlie Sheen and his model-turned-actress wife Denise Richards are to divorce.
Richards, 34, who is six months pregnant, filed papers in Los Angeles and asked for custody of the couple's year-old daughter as well as the baby she is expecting with Sheen.
The court papers listed irreconcilable differences as the reason for seeking the divorce just two-and-a-half years into their marriage.
I was struck the other month when I saw the two of them on the cover of Redbook or some other bland, traditional housewife magazine at the grocery store check-out line. Just bizarre to see them on that kind of magazine rather than on the National Enquirer where they belonged. Now the natural order returns.
Seiously, though, I think the over/under on their marriage was 1 year. So, give them some credit for lasting this long. Neither seemed like the poster-couple for marital stability.
Blogs, BCRA and Free Speech
You may have read about the
interview Declan McCullagh had with Bradley Smith, a Federal Elections Commission commissioner. Smith, is a foe of Sen. John McCain. McCain wants the BCRA broadly construed and enforced by the FEC while Smith wants narrow construction and actually tends to oppose FEC regulation of campaign speech.
In the interview Smith warns that the FEC is about to start cracking down on the Internet. Coordinated communications on the internet; and all sorts of internet related campaign activity are about to come under scrutiny.
I haven't talked much about Campaign Finance for a couple years because I no longer stay on top of it the way I used to. If you feel Smith is being alarmist about what is going to happen, you are wrong. I have read the BCRA. It is a restrictive pile, open to broad interperetation. Issues, especially on the net for in-kind contributions will be a major headache.
This will effect both sides. Be it at the
national, political party level or just an individual candidate running for the House or Senate.
This won't be fixed until after the FEC starts acting -- and people start getting hurt by the system. Then, maybe, there will change by Congress; but I have my doubts. People like Senators McCain and Feingold who have so much invested in limiting speech in the name of preventing "big money" from corrupting the system will fight it. They will recast it as attempts to get around a system that "levels the playing field," not as a matter of free speech. Too many politicians are so afraid of being accused of being openly bought that they won't fight it. It won't matter to them. Campaign Finance laws generally favor the incumbent.
Sorry, bit of an incoherent rant, but my time is limited.
More Starbucks Liqueur
Actually saw some at the store today. It is a fairly attractive bottle. They are fools, though, in their pricing. In Ohio, at least, it was being priced at $23. Kahlua, the coffee liqueur name brand, sells for about $17. They are going to have to reduce their price point. Starbuck's name will not be sufficient to get and keep people buying and drinking their liqueur.
