"House to Vote on Political Blogging Rules "
November 2, 2005 6:30 AM   Subscribe

"House to Vote on Political Blogging Rules" How is this to be interpreted? What's yhe motivation behind this? Who would it help more, MoveOn , or Blogs for Bush, or whom else?
posted by celerystick (24 comments total)
 
Perhaps someone can explain to me the concerns that the FCC has, namely:

Others, however, are concerned that passage of the bill will open a giant loophole for backdoor soft money to pour through the Internet.

I mean, so what? So what if a Republican candidate for the Senate funnels a million bucks into the internet-- he's going to affect voting, how? Are voters going to be affected by flashy graphics? Ooooo look pretty.... Are voters going to be convinced that Mr. White Man (R) is the one to represent them because his name is highest on Goggle?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:53 AM on November 2, 2005


Secret Life: See the Swift Boaters. Their website did a tremendous amount to spread their message, and that would be exempt from campaign finance laws.
posted by klangklangston at 6:55 AM on November 2, 2005


On the flip side, a large portion of Kerry's donations were collected 5, 10 dollars at a time through online donations. Reid wouldn't be sponsoring the bill if it weren't advantageous for his party politically.
posted by fet at 6:56 AM on November 2, 2005


Are voters going to be affected by flashy graphics?

You would be so surprised, and probably disappointed if you investigated this further. The answer will be a resounding yes!
posted by twistedonion at 7:18 AM on November 2, 2005


At least the Internet is (for now, still) a 'pull' rather than a 'push' medium. It's not like your favorite TV show being interrupted for ads about how John McCain is criminally in-sane!.

That being said... vote Perot! (ducks)
posted by anthill at 8:00 AM on November 2, 2005


I mean, numbers thrown around are usually somewhere around the cost of a nice VW. Are these people really that easily bought off?

Nope. A large donation might get you a meeting. Same as going to any of a number of poorly-attended public events might get you a meeting with the same MC (but a much shorter one, and not one where you could say things you didn't want other people to hear).

Finding evidence of vote-buying turns out to be really tricky, because votes are usually massively overdetermined -- there are lots of rationales or reasons that are consistent with the observed votes, especially because interest-group donations and constituent interests tend to be highly intercorrelated. Also, causality is hugely hard to determine. Maybe the MC voted yes because of a donation (vote-buying), maybe he got the donation because he voted yes of his own free will, maybe he voted yes because his constituents did or would demand it, maybe he voted yes because his constituents demanded it and received the donation because he voted yes... teasing these apart is really hard, because there's not enough variation between them for statistical estimators to get good leverage.

In practice, the things that get mixed up the most in public conversations seem to me to be constituent interests and pressure-group interests. MCs don't do things that actually piss off their constituents. Or, rather, they lose their next election (or the one after) when they do, and are replaced by people with a lower propensity to fuck up like that. And MCs are happy to take your money on Monday and screw you in favor of their district Tuesday through Thursday.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:06 AM on November 2, 2005


[the bill's sponsor] warned, "New federal campaign finance regulations could actually end up stifling political speech..."

Still pushing the tired "money == speech" argument, I see.

The internet is just another communications channel; it should be subject to the same campaign finance laws as any other medium, and for the same reasons.

So what if a Republican candidate for the Senate funnels a million bucks into the internet-- he's going to affect voting, how?

The same way it would affect voting if he funnels a million bucks into TV ads -- only much, much more so, because a million bucks buys you a lot more internet than it does TV airtime.
posted by ook at 8:17 AM on November 2, 2005


Reid wouldn't be sponsoring the bill if it weren't advantageous for his party politically.
posted by fet at 7:56 AM MST on November 2


The Democrats have been so politically astute this must be true.
posted by pointilist at 8:42 AM on November 2, 2005


*so* this must be true
posted by pointilist at 8:48 AM on November 2, 2005


If you think the Republicans are pushing this because they like the abstract notion of free speech, you are insane.

I'm betting they already have writers and web designers working on "Joanie and Dave's Family Friendly Blog!!" as we speak. Or other similar "educational" venues that are actually pushing Republican politics.

That rumbling sound you hear is the growth of massive, massive quantities of astroturf.
posted by selfmedicating at 8:51 AM on November 2, 2005


The Internet loved Howard Dean, look how that turned out.
posted by davros42 at 9:13 AM on November 2, 2005


Certainly turned out better than GW II.
posted by VulcanMike at 9:42 AM on November 2, 2005


The Internet loved Howard Dean, look how that turned out.

The Internet also destroyed Howard Dean's campaign. You didn't see his scream on TV in quite the same way you saw it on Fark and other sites.
posted by crataegus at 9:43 AM on November 2, 2005


On the flip side, a large portion of Kerry's donations were collected 5, 10 dollars at a time through online donations.

Than can continue. It just should get reported. This is about exemptions from reporting. Speech: still free. Money: report it.

The Internet loved Howard Dean, look how that turned out.

It got him enough attention to get massively slandered everywhere he went. And then it got him the chairmanship of the DNC, which is where many of his supporters want to see him.
posted by 3.2.3 at 9:45 AM on November 2, 2005


The Internet loved Howard Dean, look how that turned out

The republicans have actually used the internet far more to their advantage than the dem's and the dnc as a whole. I'll see if I can dig up the stats, but the amount of money collected and e-mail addresses that signed up for information from the rnc was significantly more than the dnc. Dean's just got a hell of a mouth on him and attracted more attention for it.

Hell, it was the republican conference committee/debrah pryce's office that first had a weekly podcast, held a "blog row", etc. etc.
posted by rulethirty at 9:59 AM on November 2, 2005


If you think the Republicans are pushing this

The article leaves the impression that this Jeb guy from Texas was who came up with this law, inexplicably. Reid put this out there back in March, they've been hunting for a Republican willing to sponsor it in the House since then.
posted by queen zixi at 10:18 AM on November 2, 2005


Still pushing the tired "money == speech" argument, I see.

Call it "tired" all you want, it's still a valid argument.

How did you post your comment on MeFi, anyway? On a computer that you paid for? That's an expenditure of money, so that can be prohibited without creating any first amendment problems under your "money ≠ speech" doctrine.

I am curious how you propose to speak freely, and reach more than a dozen people with your speech, without expending any money.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:33 AM on November 2, 2005


If internet speech isn't restricted by campaign finance laws, then guess what will happen? Campaigns with a lot of money will pour it into internet advertising. If the only way to get around campaign finance laws is to dress this advertising up as a private blog, then guess what will happen? You will see "Concerned Moms For America" or similar, run by a "blogger" who is as much of a figurehead as Betty Crocker.

The Democrats might do it too - but the Republicans will do it better, because Republicans are just damn good at strategizing and focus-grouping and getting everybody waving their little american flags all together.
posted by selfmedicating at 12:04 PM on November 2, 2005


Money = speech up to a point, which is why many developed countries have hard caps on campaign spending, which are incredibly low compared to American standards. If you have $50 000 for your entire campaign for Senate, you lose the ability to convince others by yelling more than the competition. Limit money and the quality of speech becomes a concern moreso than quantity.

If you're the Democratic candidate for POTUS, you don't need a duffel bag full of cash to get a reporter to quote you.
posted by mek at 4:52 PM on November 2, 2005


Sorry, my point was that the first few thousand (need a computer to post to the web) may be very important for speech, but it's hard to argue from 50 thousand up to say, 10 million. NEED SUPERBOWL ADVERTISING SLOTS FEATURING VICIOUS ROTTWEILER
posted by mek at 4:53 PM on November 2, 2005


No object of a preposition, no use of "whom."
posted by squirrel at 5:07 PM on November 2, 2005


No, "whom" is correctly used instead of "who" whenever it is an object, and there are other kinds of objects in English besides objects of prepositions.

See here, and note particularly the example, "Mrs. Dimwit consulted an astrologer whom she met in Seattle." "Whom" is not the object of any preposition, but is the object of the verb "met."

The "whom" in celerystick's post is correct, but the "who" in the final sentence should also be "whom," as it is the object of "would help."

I'm not normally one to complain about the use of "who" for "whom" in informal writing, but a) I wanted to correct squirrel's misperception, and b) celerystick used "whom" (correctly) in one place, so that weakens any claim he might make for using "who" colloquially.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:57 AM on November 4, 2005


DevilsAdvocate, you missed my point competely. Perhaps I overabbreviated it.

The tired talking point, the ancient argument against any limits on campaign spending, is basically: "Campaign finance reform is preventing me from spending as much money as humanly possible on my campaign, therefore my right to free speech is being stifled." The people who use this talking point, like this bill's sponsor, are trying to equate their ability to spend gobs of money with the first amendment right to free speech.

The reason I find that argument invalid, is: unlimited spending allows those with deep pockets to overwhelm the voices of those who don't happen to have tens of thousands of dollars to contribute to politicians. Which, in a way, stifles their right to free speech -- or at least to be heard, which is more or less the same thing.

So, no. Money does not equal free speech.
posted by ook at 12:49 AM on November 5, 2005


Good points, ook. Devil's Adv, do you have a citation for the whom rule you speak of. I suspect you might be right, but it goes against my own memory of linguistics professors whom I respected. Oh, wait, I used whom as an object of the verb there. That's just not right. I've always found solid footing with the object-of-a-preposition rule. Let me know if there are others out there who accept other kiinds of objects.
posted by squirrel at 4:54 PM on November 7, 2005


« Older Michael Piller dies.   |   Gulags, American-Style Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments