[Brad’s Gramma]

Ping to some incredibly important stuff...

[FOG724]

H. R. 1605 - Sponsor: Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] (introduced 4/13/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/13/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.

S. 678 - Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 3/17/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 3/17/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

H. R. 1606 - Sponsor: Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] (introduced 4/13/2005) Cosponsors (9)
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).

H. R. 4389 - Sponsor: Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] (introduced 11/18/2005) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 11/18/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.

H. R. 4664 - Sponsor: Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] (introduced 1/31/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/31/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.

[Jim Robinson]

The Expertise of the Regulatory State: The FEC and Internet Rules (CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM)
Red State ^ | March 23, 2006 | Brad Smith

Posted on 03/23/2006 11:31:44 PM PST by Lancey Howard

(Go to the link for the first half of this excellent and informative column for some the background info. Presented below is the best part, and I believe this provides a pretty good summary of what Jim, and hopefully everybody else, is concerned about. This is deadly serious business.)

_____________________________________________________

In any case, on the question of internet regulation, the FEC in fact brought its expertise to bear, and determined that it would not be wise to apply traditional regulation to the internet - indeed, as outlined here, it determined that the internet did not pose a threat or political corruption, and so exempted much of the web from regulation. The result was that Representatives Shays and Meehan sued, with the support of Senators McCain and Feingold, to force the FEC to regulate the internet. And won.

So here is where we are. The FEC, appointed for its expertise in the area, has determined that the internet does not pose a threat of corruption, and exempted it from much of the McCain-Feingold law's coverage. We have no idea if the President, charged with executing the law, agrees with his FEC appointees, because he has not said. Moreover, even if he did say, he cannot legally bend the FEC commissioners to his will, nor remove them for not following his policies, so he cannot be accountable. On the Congressional side, Senators McCain and Feingold, and their House counterparts, Representatives Shays and Meehan, lacking any meaningful way to exert legislative oversight (and probably lacking a majority to do so), decided to invoke the third branch, and so went to courts and sued. A judge, not appointed for her expertise in campaign finance or the internet, held that the FEC was mistaken.

With the FEC now under Court order to act, Congress as a whole seems lost as to what to do. A majority of the House voted to preserve the FEC's original regulatory exemption by writing it into the statute - but because the bill was brought up under special rules, it needed a 2/3rds vote to pass, which it did not get. Last week, the House simply punted on the issue. It seems fairly clear that the question of the internet exemption is exactly the type of issue that Congress intentionally left to the expertise of the Commission - expertise then ignored by Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, at the behest of four members of Congress, represented by a bunch of foundation funded lawyers who work for "public interest groups" with no members.

This is the state of the modern regulatory state. It seems a far cry from the separation of powers and popular accountability envisioned in the Federalist papers.

[ferri]

thank you, sent the URL to a ton of people, and they will do the same!

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP!!

[USF]

PING.

[sneakers]

bump!

[azhenfud]

How convenient Washington abridges the rights of Americans to free speech but can't find the balls to regulate the 14th to stop anchor baby attractions to illegal aliens.

For such grievance was the first revolution's beginnings, and we now have no means of redress.

I honestly can't fathom who the heck some of those in DC think they represent.

[globalheater]

Is advertising equals informing ?

Would it be unlawful to express your feelings and opinions about political parties or candidates ?

Or is it 'campaigning' that is outlawed by this ?

If so, how is it possible to draw the line between uttering an opinion and campaigning ?

[F-117A]

Mega Bump!

[Tribune7]

Not Pa. directly but it's important to know

[Obadiah]

Scary stuff. I love GWB, but I greatly lament the fact that he signed McCain-Feingold.

Thanks for the heads-up. Will make contact.

[Just A Nobody]

Done!

[Buffettfan]

free speech ping

[Final Authority]

If, as we knew at the time, McCain-Feinfgold was an affront to the first amendment, then why did GWB sign it? After the Democrats win in November (just a guess, a sleepless one at that) will he whip out his pen and sign a newer version of the "fairness doctrine" into law?

For all he has done that is positive, for all of the "feel good" times he gave us, when he signed the CFR bill into law all changed for me. It validated my belief that he is an elitist first and that he believes that the government is not formed at the consent of the governed.

I will contact my Senator(s) and advise them of the right thing to do. It is just too bad it had to come to this.

[kattracks]

BTTT

[GOPJ]

The Internet is the last vestige of free and effective political speech in America. It's what’s left of the Voice of the People. Let's keep it that way!

Well said...