TMCnet News
EDITORIAL: FEC inches toward Net regulation(Northwest Florida Daily News (Fort Walton Beach) (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Apr. 8--The Federal Election Commission has been widely hailed for a recent decision that, to a great extent, keeps the Internet free of federal campaign regulations. Although the new rule is not as onerous as some that had been considered, it does interject federal regulation into one aspect of Internet political activity, which could serve as a precedent for future regulation. As a regulation of an independent agency, the new rule is subject to change, especially in response to litigation, which is how this one came into being. If the Internet is to remain free of intrusive federal regulation, it is important for Congress to act. A majority is ready, but will the leadership cooperate? Some background: When Congress passed the Mc-Cain-Feingold campaign finance regulations, the law didn't mention Internet political activity. The FEC, noting that Congress had several times exempted the Internet from federal regulation, decided the new law did not apply to the Internet. Several members of Congress sued, and in 2004 Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the FEC would have to create rules regarding Internet politicking. The rule issued March 27 is the commission's response. To its credit, the Federal Election Commission ruled with a light hand. It exempts bloggers and other individuals politicking on the Web, including linking to other sites and even e-mailing in coordination with an official campaign, from any FEC regulation. It did so by extending the exemption from campaign finance laws that traditional media, such as newspapers, radio and TV stations, now enjoy. But the FEC also said that paid Web advertising, including banner ads and sponsored links on search engines, can be regulated like political advertising in other forms of media. This precedent could lead to further regulation of political speech on the Internet. The fact that advocates of "reform" sought this and more extensive regulation belies the claim that their concern is about the "corrupting" influence of "big money." Advertising and communication on the Web is significantly less expensive than in traditional media, making it a place where small money can counter big money and those outside the two major party organizations can have a say. And there's no evidence of any vote-buying or other forms of corruption. The desire to regulate the Internet, then, seems born of frustration that there is any institution beyond the purview of heavy-handed federal regulation. Congress can stop the nibbling easily by passing HR 1606. Its single sentence excludes communication over the Internet from the definition of public communication. That would stop the incipient regulators in their tracks. |