House Defeats Bill on Political Blogs

Guardian Unlimited ^ | Thursday November 3, 2005 | JIM ABRAMS

[Condor51]

***why is there a 2/3 requirement?***

Because the House of Representatives has completely different rules from the Seante.

Remember, for 40 some years the RATS controlld the House and treated the republicans like chattel. The rules reflect that 'disdain' for the minority party and make challanges to the majority near impossible.

[xzins]

Can any of you tell what this means?

[Congressman Billybob]

The supporters of protection for the Internet were using a special parliamentary procedure to ram the bill through. the method required a 2/3rds vote. On the other hand, as ordinary legislation, it will clearly have its majority support when introduced again.

Does that make sense?

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Democrat Official Outed as 'Sleaze' Source on Mayor O'Malley; Washington Post Ignored Story it Had (Updated)"

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[freepatriot32]

The House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs

hmmm 225 huh? i dont rember there being 225 democrats in office so that must mean that there are a whole hell of a lot of small government "conservative" republicans that voted for this s**t.Wich is excactly why I dropped out of the republican party and am now a card carrying big L Libertarian

[GSWarrior]

lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections.

Read: ...has opened up a loophole for uncontrolled commentary of elected officials that must be closed....

[conserv13]

This is an outrage. What are they going to do - throw us all in jail???

No, because this website doesn't specifically endorse any candidte over another in an election. Jim Robinson does not take any mony from the RNC as far as I know. This is an independent website.

[Cboldt]

Hahahahahahahah!!!

Nearly the exact same bill is still pending as H.R. 1605 ...

HR 1605 IH
A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

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.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1605:

---

HR 1606 IH
A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Online Freedom of Speech Act'.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

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.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1606:

Latest Major Action: 11/2/2005 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 225 - 182 (Roll no. 559).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquerytr/z?d109:HR01606:

[Political Junkie Too]

I thought that the original CFR only banned coordinated, funded, campaigning from groups within 60/30 days of an election, but allowed individual campaign speech. The problem at the time was that individual voices were not loud enough to be heard above the coordinated funded voices.

Blogs, FR, and the internet in general have given the individual voices a megaphone to be heard above the others, but they are still individual voices that have a right to be heard.

Pretty soon, they'll say that my vote is an in-kind contribution to a candidate, and so must be banned.

-PJ

[jess35]

The FIRST AMENDMENT guarantees POLITICAL SPEECH to US citizens

Actually, it protects an inalienable right. The government doesn't grant free speech.

[TSchmereL]

Senators John McAnus & Wuss Findgold. Amend this!(_1_)

[GregoryFul]

These 140 Democraps, 38 Rinos and 1 independent should be forcefully remove from office for attempting to violate our inalienable right to free speech. When the He!! are we going to march on Washington and do it!

[Let's Roll]

"Fortunately we have a Supreme Court that will stop this in it's tracks (ROFL)."

No problem - Bush will VETO it before it gets that far. \s

[Let's Roll]

The internet, blogs, email etc. is the most grass roots close to the people vehicle ever available to the populace so of course the "professional" pols/elites would want to regulate it to death.