the FEC has got to be kidding

Thursday March 3rd 2005 01:55 PM PST

Read this Article then decide if you think the FEC is as out of their minds as i think they are.

Lets just put this into a nutshell. There is a maximum amount of money i may contribute to any political candidate's campaign. Thats simple. On the other hand there are strict advertising laws relating to campaigns. Advertising is tracked based on expenditures on televsion/radio time, and ad placements. So the internet USED to be classified as being the TV/ Radio/Print kind of a media. If a candidate spends money on internet presence, then that money is just an advertising expenditure.

Here's where it gets backasswards. Now the FEC is saying that if i were to write on my blog about a particular candidate, reference their campaign material, and then link to their site, that act would be deemed a campaign contribution. The time i spent writing would be counted. The cost of my computer. The cost of the electricity that it took to power the pretty monitor. Everything would be counted as a contribution.

So here's my questions

If i were to stand outside my house on any day and talk to everybody on the street about a particular candidate, would that be considered a campaign contribution? If i wore a button outside to publicly display my support of a candidate, would that be a contribution? Bumper stickers, tshirts, hats, signs.... JUST WEARING THEM? Is that a contribution? It IS the candidate's campaign material, and i am displaying it in a public location... How much money would a T-Shirt wearing rampage in Hollywood count for as a contribution? How bout if i was in Bakersfield? Would my contribution be less? OR would it be more, cause i had to spend money on gas to get to Bakersfield?

How much does one paragraph of a rant on a blog cost to write? How much money did i spend right there? How much money did it cost you to read this? Did i waste your time? Should you have been looking for a cure for cancer? How much does a link cost?

I don't know the answers to all these questions. Fuck i don't think i know the answer to ANY of these questions. But i do know that writing an entry like this is nothing more than me starting a discussion. I'm opening up a topic, and i want to see where it goes. Simple free discussion. I'm talking about things that matter to me, and i am expressing my opinions in a way that does not infringe on the rights of any other human. They have the option of telling me what they think. Simple

So what is the FEC really trying to do?

They don't want a campaign give $50 to each blogger it can find.... all under the table. Spending HUGE amount of money in rouge advertising. Is that their goal? To regulate the campaign? To make sure their advertising expenditures are all accounted for? They want all the politicians to play fair? So why are you planning on regulating ME? Go fix the problem at the source. Don't try to tell me i'm doing something illegal. I'm really sorry if this offends anyone at the FEC.... BUT STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY CODE. MY HTML. MY SITE. MY OPINION. MY SPEECH!

Comments:

Just another example of how certain politicians and beuracrats can't ever find a way to get their heads out of their asses long enough to see the forest for the trees. The whole point of this law is to stop people and organizations with deep pockets from basically buying an election. How does regulating the internet accomplish that? It clearly doesn't so maybe there's something else going on here. Maybe some beuracrats just can't help themselves and feel that they need to put controls on everything even if it's unnecessary just because they can. Sounds like small penis syndrome to me. :-)

Posted by:

They're just trying to shut the bloggers up because they're scared of them in light of Rathergate and the Gannon/Guckert scandal. They're like "oh shit, there's an unregulated grassroots army out there who's gonna expose all of our dirty secrets, how can we shut them up?" It's just a power play to try to maintain status quo so the lobbyists can keep the monopoly on the politicians' ears. They like the fact that the game is rigged and don't trust this new, unchecked, rogue element crashing the party and threatening their bullshit. I'd like to say I remember the good ol' days when our government was "by the people for the people", but that was generations ago, long before I was born :(

Posted by: Yams