Pouring Through the FEC Proposal. Part I.
You may find the FEC proposal here.
I am not quite half-way through the proposed regulations and have come across the first section that relates to blogs. This section is on pages 21 lines 18-21 to page 22 lines 1-14.
The section notes in 2004 certain highly linked to and visited blogs received payments to promote at least one presidential and one senatorial candidates. For example, the operator of the ninth most "linked" blog on the Internet, which received as many as one million visits daily, reportedly received $12,000 over a four-month period from one presidential candidate.(Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Internet Communications. Page 22 lines 1-2).
The question asked is should such blogs be required to disclose such payments? This is a different question from should they? Most people agree they should. My guess is in light of the current atmosphere on CFR is they will require such disclosure.
Such disclosure is coerced speech and as such it runs afoul of the First Amendment. Some may say this disclosure is required (See the bottom of this page for just such a disclosure.) for other similar communications but all that means is coercion is going on in other forms of communication.
I am not quite half-way through the proposed regulations and have come across the first section that relates to blogs. This section is on pages 21 lines 18-21 to page 22 lines 1-14.
The section notes in 2004 certain highly linked to and visited blogs received payments to promote at least one presidential and one senatorial candidates. For example, the operator of the ninth most "linked" blog on the Internet, which received as many as one million visits daily, reportedly received $12,000 over a four-month period from one presidential candidate.(Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Internet Communications. Page 22 lines 1-2).
The question asked is should such blogs be required to disclose such payments? This is a different question from should they? Most people agree they should. My guess is in light of the current atmosphere on CFR is they will require such disclosure.
Such disclosure is coerced speech and as such it runs afoul of the First Amendment. Some may say this disclosure is required (See the bottom of this page for just such a disclosure.) for other similar communications but all that means is coercion is going on in other forms of communication.
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 7:42 AM
<< Home