You’re Next!

Think bloggers would never be subjected to the stupidity that is the federal government? Wrong. They want you to shut up before the next election:

FEC May Tighten Restrictions On Internet Political Activity
Mon Feb 14 2005 10:38:41 ET

The Federal Election Commission next month will begin looking at tightening restrictions on political activities on the Internet, ROLL CALL reports Monday.

The FEC is planning to examine the question of how Internet activities, when coordinated with candidates’ campaigns, fit into the definition of ‘public communications.

Specifically, the FEC is planning to examine the question of how Internet activities, when coordinated with candidates’ campaigns, fit into the definition of “public communications.” While coordinated communications are considered campaign contributions and therefore subject to strict contribution limits, current FEC regulations adopted in 2002 carve out an exemption for coordinated political communications that are transmitted over the Internet.

Developing…

Mark my words. I will actively campaign against any politician in any party that even makes the slightest attempt to turn this into a law.

Got that guys?

Any of you bottom feeding scumbags that try to take away my right to express myself will feel a wrath like you’ve never felt. Oh, and don’t think this won’t unite bloggers, either. You think someone like Kos or Andrew Sullivan wouldn’t party up with Glenn Reynolds or Wizbang if it meant booting some shitbag who wants to curtail basic freedoms we’re entitled to?

When everyone saw “election reform” as merely a way of controlling right-wing talk radio, no one seemed to care. Well, fellow bloggers, the ball is in our court now, and we’d damn well better start caring lest we have nothing left to care about.

(via Drudge)

This entry was posted in Scary. Bookmark the permalink.
  • pete from astoria

    It seems more and more that our government can’t stand personal freedom for its citizens. Any activity that doesn’t somehow involve government “oversight” seems to be on their to-do list. The problem is mainly on the agency level. The FEC, SEC, DEP, FTC, CDC, CIA etc. all have the power to interpret existing law, and somehow come up with arbitrary decisions. It’s hard for any administration to reign in these agencies because of the entrenched bureaucracy that exists within. The appointed heads of these agencies can do very little to reform them, and they are many times the only entity within, that is “loyal” to the administration in power.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    It’s hard for any administration to reign in these agencies because of the entrenched bureaucracy that exists within.

    Aye, it is hard to rein them in, but it’s not hard to come out against obvious abuses of power. One way to do so would be to veto bad campaign finance reform legislation. ;-)

  • pete from astoria

    That’s true. McCain/Fiengold was a horrible bill that should have been vetoed, and should be declared null and void by the Supreme Court. It’s here now, and the only way I can see it defeated or fixed is through new legislation. Unfortunately the media considers the issue (Campaign Finance) closed, therefore, there is very little reason or will for any member of congress to go there again! I know it’ horrible but that’s the way our political system works.

  • Patrick

    When everyone saw “election reform” as merely a way of controlling right-wing talk radio, no one seemed to care.

    Vinny,

    I think you need to better define the discrepancy between right leaning AM radio and the realm of internet bogs.

    One is controlled mostly by multi-million dollar corporations with an agenda to persue. On the other hand, the blog forum plays host to freethinking and, as seems to be the trend, genuine grass roots efforts in the political arena. I think the latter is part of the foundation to contemporary democratic participation. Restricting blogs is simply tyrannous. So, for the most part, I agree with you.

  • Dave

    Are you going to try to tell me that moveon.org (and a few others like it) is a grassroots blog? It is funded by billionaires.

  • Patrick

    Dave,

    Can you tell me exactly where, in my post, I portrayed moveon.org as a grassroots blog? Or are we just going to make wild assumptions?

    And, uhh, just to set things strait, Moveon.org could, certainly in its infancy and perhaps today, be considered a grassroots blog since it was originally founded by a middle class couple who shared no affiliations with big business. This was initially in response to the media’s infatuation with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. It was later that the site began receiving large financial backing from liberal donors.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net Gordon the Magnificent

    Patrick,
    You just contradicted yourself, dumbass.

  • Patrick

    Gordon,

    Since you obviously have trouble reading at an 8th grade level, I guess I will have to guide you through the apparent complexity of my last statements.

    I made a comment about Blogs leaning toward the trend of grassroots efforts in both the political and social domains. Dave essentially tells me I am wrong for considering them “grassroots” because billionaires fund Moveon.org. I then tell him that I never explicitly mentioned Moveon.org as one of the blogs I consider to depict a grassroots effort. Then, I suggest that:

    “Moveon.org could, certainly in its infancy and perhaps today, be considered a grassroots blog since it was originally founded by a middle class couple who shared no affiliations with big business.”

    If you could point out to me the prevalence of a contradiction I have made against my previous statements I would be incredibly appreciative. Until then, I suggest you learn better reading and comprehension skills.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net Gordon the Magnificent

    In your case Patty, complexity tanslates to idiocy.

    You just wrote a thousand words trying to explain your own backpedaling and mealy mouthed contradictions.

    Keep entertaining me, I’m enjoying it.

  • http://members.cox.net/truth-seeker Chet

    In its infancy Clear Channel was a lowly radio company owned by 2 non-radio guys who wanted to make an investment. Back then there was hardly any corporate backing to even form an “agenda” to “push”.

    Keep treading, Pat.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net Gordon the Magnificent

    Easy Chet.

    Patty’s just confused. He meant it was a grass roots organization long before he even said so. And then when he stated what he meant, he meant to say it another way. Sort of, but he really meant not to imply that it’s a grass roots even though he stated it is. There’s a big difference there, somewhere, I think?

    Remind you of Kerry voting for the War?

  • Dave

    Patrick,

    I was making a point that there are blogs run with the greatest of intentions (this one included) that seek to point out the truth behind an issue, logically explain a position, and support a healthy debate.

    However, there are an equal number (if not greater number) of blogs that spew out propaganda, stretched truths, scare tactics, personal attacks, and outright lies on an everyday occurance.

    Blogs should not be regulated, but I don’t believe they should be painted as “grassroots” either.

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • pete from astoria

    It seems more and more that our government can’t stand personal freedom for its citizens. Any activity that doesn’t somehow involve government “oversight” seems to be on their to-do list. The problem is mainly on the agency level. The FEC, SEC, DEP, FTC, CDC, CIA etc. all have the power to interpret existing law, and somehow come up with arbitrary decisions. It’s hard for any administration to reign in these agencies because of the entrenched bureaucracy that exists within. The appointed heads of these agencies can do very little to reform them, and they are many times the only entity within, that is “loyal” to the administration in power.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    It’s hard for any administration to reign in these agencies because of the entrenched bureaucracy that exists within.

    Aye, it is hard to rein them in, but it’s not hard to come out against obvious abuses of power. One way to do so would be to veto bad campaign finance reform legislation. ;-)

  • pete from astoria

    That’s true. McCain/Fiengold was a horrible bill that should have been vetoed, and should be declared null and void by the Supreme Court. It’s here now, and the only way I can see it defeated or fixed is through new legislation. Unfortunately the media considers the issue (Campaign Finance) closed, therefore, there is very little reason or will for any member of congress to go there again! I know it’ horrible but that’s the way our political system works.

  • Patrick

    When everyone saw “election reform” as merely a way of controlling right-wing talk radio, no one seemed to care.

    Vinny,

    I think you need to better define the discrepancy between right leaning AM radio and the realm of internet bogs.

    One is controlled mostly by multi-million dollar corporations with an agenda to persue. On the other hand, the blog forum plays host to freethinking and, as seems to be the trend, genuine grass roots efforts in the political arena. I think the latter is part of the foundation to contemporary democratic participation. Restricting blogs is simply tyrannous. So, for the most part, I agree with you.

  • Dave

    Are you going to try to tell me that moveon.org (and a few others like it) is a grassroots blog? It is funded by billionaires.

  • Patrick

    Dave,

    Can you tell me exactly where, in my post, I portrayed moveon.org as a grassroots blog? Or are we just going to make wild assumptions?

    And, uhh, just to set things strait, Moveon.org could, certainly in its infancy and perhaps today, be considered a grassroots blog since it was originally founded by a middle class couple who shared no affiliations with big business. This was initially in response to the media’s infatuation with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. It was later that the site began receiving large financial backing from liberal donors.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net/ Gordon the Magnificent

    Patrick,
    You just contradicted yourself, dumbass.

  • Patrick

    Gordon,

    Since you obviously have trouble reading at an 8th grade level, I guess I will have to guide you through the apparent complexity of my last statements.

    I made a comment about Blogs leaning toward the trend of grassroots efforts in both the political and social domains. Dave essentially tells me I am wrong for considering them “grassroots” because billionaires fund Moveon.org. I then tell him that I never explicitly mentioned Moveon.org as one of the blogs I consider to depict a grassroots effort. Then, I suggest that:

    “Moveon.org could, certainly in its infancy and perhaps today, be considered a grassroots blog since it was originally founded by a middle class couple who shared no affiliations with big business.”

    If you could point out to me the prevalence of a contradiction I have made against my previous statements I would be incredibly appreciative. Until then, I suggest you learn better reading and comprehension skills.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net/ Gordon the Magnificent

    In your case Patty, complexity tanslates to idiocy.

    You just wrote a thousand words trying to explain your own backpedaling and mealy mouthed contradictions.

    Keep entertaining me, I’m enjoying it.

  • http://members.cox.net/truth-seeker Chet

    In its infancy Clear Channel was a lowly radio company owned by 2 non-radio guys who wanted to make an investment. Back then there was hardly any corporate backing to even form an “agenda” to “push”.

    Keep treading, Pat.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net/ Gordon the Magnificent

    Easy Chet.

    Patty’s just confused. He meant it was a grass roots organization long before he even said so. And then when he stated what he meant, he meant to say it another way. Sort of, but he really meant not to imply that it’s a grass roots even though he stated it is. There’s a big difference there, somewhere, I think?

    Remind you of Kerry voting for the War?

  • Dave

    Patrick,

    I was making a point that there are blogs run with the greatest of intentions (this one included) that seek to point out the truth behind an issue, logically explain a position, and support a healthy debate.

    However, there are an equal number (if not greater number) of blogs that spew out propaganda, stretched truths, scare tactics, personal attacks, and outright lies on an everyday occurance.

    Blogs should not be regulated, but I don’t believe they should be painted as “grassroots” either.