The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is holding a hearing
today to receive public feedback on whether it should create
new rules regulating political speech, including political speech on
the Internet that one commissioner warned could affect blogs, YouTube videos
and even websites like the Drudge Report.
The hearing is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling
in McCutcheon v. FEC last year, which struck down the FEC’s previous cap on
aggregate campaign contributions from a single donor in an election cycle.
Before the decision, individuals were limited to a combined
total of $46,200 in contributions to all federal candidates, and $70,800
to federal political action committees and parties.
Individuals are no longer restricted by aggregate limits,
which Chief Justice John Roberts said “intrude without justification on a
citizen’s ability to exercise ‘the most fundamental First Amendment
activities’.”
They may now “contribute up to $2,600 per election to
a federal candidate, $10,000 per calendar year to a state party committee,
$32,400 per calendar year to a national party committee, and $5,000 per calendar
year to a PAC [political action committee],” according to the FEC.
The commission, which consists of three Republican and
three Democratic members, last considered such regulations in 2005.
However, intense opposition from First Amendment groups resulted in rules that were limited to paid advertisements from political
campaigns, parties, and PACs.
This time around, organizations like the Electronic Frontier
Foundation have warned that some Democrats on the commission would like to impose
much more burdensome regulations that could serve as the equivalent of
spending caps in restricting political speech.
Last October, FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel issued a statement in which she complained that the agency was not doing
enough to monitor activity on the Internet.
“Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political
message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically
exempt from the same requirements when placed on the Internet alone. As a matter
of policy, this simply does not make sense,” Ravel said.
However, the commission’s three Republican members – Lee
Goodman, Caroline Hunter, and Matthew Petersen – responded to Ravel’s comments in a joint statement.
“Despite the Internet’s growing importance as a tool for
all citizens to engage in political debate, and notwithstanding this
Commission’s promise to take a ‘restrained regulatory approach’ with respect
to online political activity, [Ravel] apparently believes the time has come
to impose greater regulation on political speech over the Internet,” the
group wrote.
According to Commissioner Goodman, who served as chairman
of the FEC last year, regulation of content placed on the Internet is a
very real possibility.
“The commission has
seen proposals to regulate even issue advocacy referencing federal candidates
that is disseminated on the Internet,” Goodman told CNSNews.com.
“That could reach YouTube videos, blogs, and websites like
[the] Drudge Report,” he warned.
Among those testifying at Wednesday’s hearing, three former
Republican commissioners – Donald McGahn, David Mason, and Hans Von
Spakovsky – are scheduled to speak against further controls from
the FEC.
The Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center,
League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG are among those
expected to testify in favor of more government regulations.
Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham University professor who
will also be testifying at Wednesday’s hearing, disputed the idea that the
agency would follow Ravel’s dictate.
“This seems to me to be a major and silly political distraction,
because this hearing is about what the FEC should be doing around McCutcheon.
With the decision, along with the Citizens United decision, there are all these new opportunities for
patronage politics… I’m calling hogwash [about the idea that regulations
will be imposed on online content],” Teachout told CNSNews.com.
Democrats have long supported regulating political
content on the Internet, but have generally sought to do so using the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC).
In 2009, a staff member for former Rep. Henry Waxman
(D-CA) spoke about the possibility of the FCC passing regulations that would affect sites
like Drudge.
“Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one
side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views?” the
staff member asked. “These are some of the questions [Waxman] is thinking
about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people
in place to answer them.”
However, with the FCC set to vote on February 26 on “net neutrality” rules under the auspices
of preventing private Internet operators from imposing controls, the
political focus behind the push to regulate online political speech has
shifted largely to the FEC.
The political affiliation of the FEC chairman works on
a rotating basis, with the two major political parties trading off each
year. Since each party retains an equal share of members on the commission,
any new rules adopted by the commission would require bipartisan support.
Related Posts
-
CommentsShouldn’t the Federal Election Commission questioned Obama’s eligibility ? The only Free Press left is the Internet. Unsustainable campaign contributions need to be replaced with voters researching candidates and communicating with each other.Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment