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.
I suggest Mr. Robinson, we find out which politicians at the Federal Level at on the side of Freedom of Speech on the internet and then concentrate efforts on those who are not.
Of course, accountability is the very last thing these statist clowns want... 'twas ever thus, though.
If you've ever been to China, you'd see the amazing similarities between our leaders' perceptions of the "governed".