(continued from previous page)
under the press exemption. It becomes a really complex issue that would strike deep into the heart of the Internet and the bloggers who are writing out there today. (Editor's note: federal law limits the press exemption to a "broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication." )
How do you see this playing out?
There's sensitivity in the commission on this. But remember the commission's decision to exempt the Internet only passed by a 4-2 vote.
This time, we couldn't muster enough votes to appeal the judge's decision. We appealed parts of her decision, but there were only three votes to appeal the Internet part (and we needed four). There seem to be at least three commissioners who like this.
Then this is a partisan issue?
Yes, it is at this time. But I always point out that partisan splits tend to reflect ideology rather than party. I don't think the Democratic commissioners are sitting around saying that the Internet is working to the advantage of the Republicans.
One of the reasons it's a good time to (fix this) now is you don't know who's benefiting. Both the Democrats and Republicans used the Internet very effectively in the last campaign.
What would you like to see happen?
I'd like someone to say that unpaid activity over the Internet is not an expenditure or contribution, or at least activity done by regular Internet journals, to cover sites like CNET, Slate and Salon. Otherwise, it's very likely that the Internet is going to be regulated, and the FEC and Congress will be inundated with e-mails saying, "How dare you do this!"
What happens next?
It's going to be a battle, and if nobody in Congress is willing to stand up and say, "Keep your hands off of this, and we'll change the statute to make it clear," then I think grassroots Internet activity is in danger. The impact would affect e-mail lists, especially if there's any sense that they're done in coordination with the campaign. If I forward something from the campaign to my personal list of several hundred people, which is a great grassroots activity, that's what we're talking about having to look at.
Senators McCain and Feingold have argued that we have to regulate the Internet, that we have to regulate e-mail. They sued us in court over this and they won.
If Congress doesn't change the law, what kind of activities will the FEC have to target?
We're talking about any decision by an individual to put a link (to a political candidate) on their home page, set up a blog, send out mass e-mails, any kind of activity that can be done on the Internet.
Again, blogging could also get us into issues about online journals and non-online journals. Why should CNET get an exemption but not an informal blog? Why should Salon or Slate get an exemption? Should Nytimes.com and Opinionjournal.com get an exemption but not online sites, just because the newspapers have a print edition as well?
Why wouldn't the news exemption cover bloggers and online media?
Because the statute refers to periodicals or broadcast, and it's not clear the Internet is either of those. Second, because there's no standard for being a blogger, anyone can claim to be one, and we're back to the deregulated Internet that the judge objected to. Also I think some of my colleagues on the commission would be uncomfortable with that kind of blanket exemption.
So if you're using text that the campaign sends you, and you're reproducing it on your blog or forwarding it to a mailing list, you could be in trouble?
Yes. In fact, the regulations are very specific that reproducing a campaign's material is a reproduction for purpose of triggering the law. That'll count as an expenditure that counts against campaign finance law.
This is an incredible thicket. If someone else doesn't take action, for instance in Congress, we're running a real possibility of serious Internet regulation. It's going to be bizarre.
Alex Martin Nov 7, 2005, 11:49 AM PST
John Molloy Oct 22, 2005, 4:31 PM PDT
Paul B Apr 6, 2005, 4:26 PM PDT
National Editor Mar 18, 2005, 10:12 AM PST
David Brown Mar 7, 2005, 2:37 PM PST
D Kairis Mar 7, 2005, 6:41 AM PST
Ron Arnett Mar 6, 2005, 11:29 AM PST
Martin Franklin Mar 6, 2005, 8:49 AM PST
Newsdotcom Commenter Mar 6, 2005, 4:32 AM PST
Jesse King Mar 5, 2005, 11:52 PM PST
James Heckman Mar 5, 2005, 12:40 PM PST
Richard West Mar 5, 2005, 11:07 AM PST
William Barker Mar 5, 2005, 9:38 AM PST
Dana Pico Mar 5, 2005, 8:52 AM PST
Bonnie Close Mar 5, 2005, 7:12 AM PST
Dan Jones Mar 5, 2005, 5:14 AM PST
Ronald Howell Mar 5, 2005, 1:21 AM PST
Hoshi Sato Mar 4, 2005, 8:20 PM PST
Vicki Wall Mar 4, 2005, 4:32 PM PST
Charles Kunz Mar 4, 2005, 3:17 PM PST
Alice Lillie Mar 4, 2005, 11:13 AM PST
Marc Leblanc Mar 4, 2005, 9:14 AM PST
Glenn Turpin Mar 4, 2005, 2:46 AM PST
Jason Baron Mar 4, 2005, 1:11 AM PST
Mean Dean Mar 4, 2005, 12:50 AM PST
Service allows people to post "all types of online and offline information and images" that may be searchable on several Google sites.
Photos: Google Base--all that's fit to post
High Impact
Frustrated at limitations on mainstream mobile phones, "homebrew" enthusiasts are building their own.
Photos: Tinkering with phones
High Impact
New technology could put tiny projectors inside cell phones, MP3 players.
Photos: Tiny projectors
Recent events at schools illustrate how reckless teens can be when it comes to posting personal information online.
Friendster for sale?
The company is making research a higher priority--investing more resources in the group and aggressively developing technology in-house.
Photos: Behind the scenes at Symantec