Protect Democratic Underground.

[Eric J in MN]

Fox News spends millions promoting the Republicans. It doesn't have to register as a political organization.

But under a bill HR 4900 from Congressman Tom Allen (D-Maine), supported by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), website owners who spend over $10,000/year would have to register with the federal government.

Phone them and ask why website owners (including the owners of DU) shouldn't have the same rights as Fox News.

Nancy Pelosi
[phone] (SF)
[phone] (DC)

Tom Allen
(207)-774-5019 (Maine)
(202)-225-6116 (DC)


More at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/16/191640/672

[Minnesota Libra]

1. Oh yes neocons do as they please and independent thinkers are........

......shut down.:argh:

[Trevelyan]

2. Thank you for the links. I went to your site and signed the petition to

protect our Internet freedom at:

http://www.commoncause.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1408869&action=5458&template=x.ascx~Protect Net Neutrality

[Eric J in MN]

4. You're welcome. (nt)

nt

[Eric J in MN]

3. I updated it to change the term "bloggers" to "website owners"

since it would apply to blogs and message-boards such as this one.

[Dunvegan]

5. Called Pelosi's local San Francisco office...

...they say Pelosi is supporting the Allen-Bass HR bill to counter a wider-sweeping, more invasive and controlling Internet blogging bill: the Online Freedom of Speech bill.

Just like the Repubs to call a draconian bill against freedom of blogging speech the "Online Freedom of Speech" bill. Welcome to 1984 Newspeak.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 15, 2006

CONTACT:
Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider
202-226-7616
Pelosi: Allen-Bass Internet Free Speech Act Protects Bloggers and Campaign Finance

Washington, D.C. -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today in support of the bipartisan Internet Free Speech Protection Act of 2006, introduced by Congressman Tom Allen (D-Maine) and Charles Bass (R-N.H.):

“I have always been fully committed to freedom of speech on the Internet, and I will not support attempts to subject everyday bloggers to Federal Election Commission regulations or silence the rights of Americans to go online and voice their opinions.

“I oppose the Online Freedom of Speech Act because it creates a blanket exemption for the Internet from key provisions of campaign finance laws. It would open enormous loopholes for political parties and federal candidates to make use of soft money to buy campaign ads on the Internet.

"There is a bipartisan compromise, however, which I fully support. The Allen-Bass Internet Free Speech Protection Act of 2006 provides greater protections for bloggers and other individuals without sacrificing the significant campaign finance reforms the Congress enacted in 2002. I urge the Republican Leadership to schedule a House vote on Allen-Bass bill this week.”

[Eric J in MN]

6. The two bills

H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act,is broader in its protection. It exempts all of the internet from campaign finance laws.

It's better than HR 4900, which would require anyone with a website which costs over $10,000 to register with the federal government.

[Dunvegan]

9. So...her office LIED to me? Beauty.

Time to research this...call them back...and climb all over them.

I've voted for Pelosi since she was a San Francisco Board of Supervisors member.

Not going to let her office play obfuscation on my dime, thankyouverymuch.

[EFerrari]

10. Maybe they were just confused. n/t

[Dunvegan]

14. Not this time, sfexpat...I talked to three different staffers...

Perhaps you should have a go at it to (I know you'd get them quaking in their designer heels!)

Really...I started with a staffer...was shuttled to Media Relations...then to a legal staffer.

They are (all three) selling the new bill as a "less draconian" alternative to the Online Freedom bill.

I need to call back and get a fax number for Pelosi for sending her the ongoing stuff that Atrios and Daily Koz are running down. They have the issues down...(no pun intended) pat. ;)

[EFerrari]

16. I'm sorry to hear that. But, I better not call them today.

I might reach through the phone and pull someone's hair out.

Bad week for pacifism. :)

[Dunvegan]

17. Qualities for which me husband and I love you and yours, sfexpat!

[SoCalDem]

23. Online Freedom Bill.. Don;t you just LOVE it

If they want the freedom they CLAIM to want, NO BILL IS NECESSARY.. JUST LEAVE IT THE HELL ALONE..

[Eric J in MN]

25. It's more complicated than that.

The FEC wasn't planning to regulate the internet, but Senator Russ Feingold sued and a judge ordered that the FEC has to regulate the internet under current law.

So if neither of these bills passes, the FEC will still issue new regulations.

Maybe they will be good regulations, maybe they will be bad regulations. If neither bill passes, we'll find out.

[Eric J in MN]

19. A reasonable objection to HR 1606,

is that its protection is so wide that someone could buy internet ads for a candidate using soft money under it.

I would like to see HR 1606 passed now, and perhaps amended someday to deal with the internet ads problem.

But HR 1606, is not "more invasive and controlling."

This is almost the entire bill:
========================================
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.'.
========================================

Direct links to bill text at Thomas usually don't work, but you can read the bill by clicking below and typing "HR 1606."

http://thomas.loc.gov/

A Senate version HR 1606 is supported by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). It's also supported by the blogger Kos of The Daily KOs.

[Eric J in MN]

31. Having done more reading on the bills this morning, I can explain

what the Pelosi staffers were basing that on.

The Center for Democracy and Technology is assumuing a worst case scenario regarding regulations the FEC may write about issues which aren't addressed in HR 1606.

Using that dubious assumption, they can claim that HR 4900-which may require DU and The Daily Kos to register as "political committees"-is less restrictive.

[hang a left]

11. Jeez....I am confused.

So you are saying HR 1606, Online Freedom of Speech Act is the one we want not HR 4900. So why is Pelosi pushing 4900?

[Eric J in MN]

20. There are reform groups like "The Center for Democracy and Technology"

who say that HR 1606, which gives wide protection to internet speech, is too wide.

According to the CDT it would create "large new loopholes in campaign finance law."

My answer is that we should protect free speech now by passig HR 1606.

If problems arise, address them a that time in a focused way. Right now, when things are going well with free speech on the internet, don't legislate against theoretical problems.

[dogday]

8. What's up with Pelosi these days?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11866980/

WASHINGTON — Censure President Bush? Impeach him? Or discreetly kill those ideas to avoid fueling Republican intensity?

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has chosen the “discreetly kill” option, arguing that the current impeachment/censure talk is just a pointless distraction from the party’s message.

“I think that things are going well for the Democrats right now,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday, alluding to recent data showing that a plurality of poll respondents would prefer a Democratic-controlled House.

So why, she implied, should Democrats risk spoiling the mood?

[orleans]

37. Dear Nancy

the talk about impeachment/censure is not pointless distraction from the party's message. it's what your base wants to see happen. you see, dear nancy, we want bush impeached--yesterday! we want him censured--at the very least. we don't want to hear your version of the party's message (about moving on to the business of the day. this IS the business of the day).

(what is with these dems who are in the position of getting the presidency? gore, kerry, pelosi--always back down or away from it. election fraud? impeachment? no, let's just move on with the business of the congress. what absolute bullshit!!!!! if you really don't want to be president then stop putting yourself in a position where it might happen. let someone who is willing to take over be in that position.)

[sandnsea]

7. I care where their money comes from

Not how much they spend. What a bassackwards bill.

And this is just classic in people putting their own interests ahead of the public good. If bloggers put the public good first, they'd acknowledge that receiving thousands of dollars from a politician or party or group ought to be reported.

[Eric J in MN]

21. Neither bill is ideal.

But HR 1606 errs in too much free speech, and HR 4900 errs in too little.

I prefer HR 1606.

[Greyhound]

12. Registration always precedes regulation. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

13. Thanks for this alert & link.Happy to sign petition at Common Cause.n/t

[Dunvegan]

15. Fax-Blast Time! Pelosi is sellng the Allen bill as "less draconian"...

...Time to send her Atrios' rant and the Daily Kos thread that runs down the issues for her.

I started with a staffer...was shuttled to Media Relations...then to a legal staffer.

They are (all three) selling the new bill as a "less draconian" alternative to the Online Freedom bill.

Nancy Pelosi's Fax Numbers:

San Francisco Office: [phone]
Washington DC Office: [phone]

And, for my favorite Internet freedom warriors, here's contact info for Al Gore's CurrentTV:

E-mail: [e-mail]
Fax: [phone]

PRINT OUT AND FAX THEM THE FOLLOWING!

Daily Kos' rant/facts: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/17/12343/5178

Atrios' facts/rant:
More Internets

Kos has more on the stupid goo-gooers who don't understand what they're dealing with. I'm struck by the number of people at Kos and elsewhere who just really do not understand the issues at play. It has nothing to do with how much advertising revenue Markos gets. Unless the internet is exempted from the legal definition of "public communication" or other similarly strong safeguards are put into place then sites like Democratic Underground and the Free Republic would have to shut down or reform as political committees. If, as reformers want, state party committees have to start putting a value on posting up a link to a federal canddiate sites then links to candidates or republications of campaign materials would have to be assigned a specific value (how I have no idea). It wouldn't just impact the ability of Markos to make money, it would make it literally impossible for him to run the site as he currently does. It wouldn't just impact "big bloggers" it would potentially impact everyone.

[Mind_your_head]

18. K & R

It's about a lot more than just protecting Democratic Underground!

:kick:

[Dunvegan]

22. Just replying for a kick and so your sig doesn't apply, Mind_your_head

Plus I'm a registered "thread-killer" too. :hi:

[annabanana]

24. signed & k!. . . . . .eom

[Mind_your_head]

39. Thanks - now I'm gonna have to change my sig line

if people like you keep replying to me! ;-)

:hi: back-at-ya (and a kick back to the top)

[hootinholler]

26. Rec this up people it needs to be seen top right. n/t

[progressoid]

27. What a load of crap...

“We want to become as free as it possibly can without undermining the entire campaign-finance-reform legislation,” added Allen

[file83]

28. Ummm....I'm pretty sure Fox News spends over $10K/year on their website...

...so how would they be exempt from this?

Don't get me wrong, I think this bill is bullshit, but I'm just wondering how any MSM website would be exempt?

[Eric J in MN]

40. The FEC may rule that Fox News has the primary purpose of informing

the public, and so it gets the media exemption in all its formats, but that "Democratic Underground" and "The Daily Kos" have the primary purpose of influencing federal elections, and so we don't get the media exemption.

I believe that the primary purpose of Fox News is to influence federal elections, but the FEC wouldn't have to rule the way I would.

[Time for change]

29. Why would Pelosi do this?

Recommended.

[Eric J in MN]

41. A group called "The Center for Democracy and Technology"

is predicting a worst case scenario if this bill isn't passed, in which the FEC is as restrictive as possible in writing internet regulations.

My own prediction is that if neither of the internet-regulation bills pass, that the FEC won't pass horrible regulations. I'd just as soon that the FEC has a chance to write regulations using existing law, and if there is anything horrible in their regulations, then Congress can pass a bill to specifically address that.

[dsc]

30. I fail to see why this is a huge problem

Unless the registration is particularly onerous it seems to be reasonable to require people spending five figures to affect politics.

[Eric J in MN]

42. The question is then what?

Will the owners of DU have to keep records of every link to a candidate's website posted? Will they ban linking to candidate's websites to avoid that?

News organizations post links to candidate websites without filing with the FEC, and DU should be able to do that as well.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. On Monday I'll call them. Everyone, please call them!

The reason they're doing this, is Republicans can't stand the freedom of blogging. It's the same reason Judy Miller hates blogs. They expose the truth. I'll be calling on Monday.

[mwooldri]

33. If the worst came to the worst, DU (and others) could ...

... do a number of things to "get around" the legislation, if it were to happen.

One, DU could get into the print (paper) business. All we need to do is publish a weekly listing. Alternatively - and sorry I am not aware of the structure of DU, some friendly media like The Nation could take DU on under its wing and we would carry on 'as-is' but because we'd be media now (as a subsidiary organization of The Nation) then there wouldn't be this issue, if I am understanding things correctly.

The other thing that could be done (and it's a bit radical), is for DU to 'offshore'. But then that would be a last-ditch solution and if that were to be necessary then there'd be other things to be worried about too.

I don't think this will come to pass - there's plenty others on 'the other side' who want their free speech too.

Mark.

[Eric J in MN]

43. If the FEC wants to crush to DU, it could categorize it as

a political committee, arguing that it costs over $10,000 and has the primary purpose of influencing federal elections.

It could do this even if DU published a weekly newsletter on paper.

[VP505]

34. I got this Email from Public Citizen's Clean Up Washington

"the legislative proposal – H.R. 1606 – was removed from consideration late yesterday afternoon. However, proponents of the bill are working hard behind the scenes to bring it back for another vote. Watch for updates from Public Citizen's Clean Up Washington about this legislation in the future."

[Eric J in MN]

44. HR 1606 is the one preferred by "The Daily Kos,"

but it has weaknesses, too.

It would be fine with me if neither bill passes, and the FEC writes regulations based on existing law.

Then if the regulations are horrible, Congress can address just the problem.

[Trevelyan]

35. K&R Done Pelosi also needs to be forced to step down -- she is the

Democratic House Leader in NAME ONLY.

[HootieMcBoob]

36. kick n/t

:kick:

[rucky]

38. This is so anti-1st Amendment...

i can't believe it's coming from our side of the aisle.

:(