Friday, November 04, 2005

Some Are More Equal Than Others?

Uff-da. I have to admit I'm not as smart on the massive tangle that has been campaign finance reform as I want to be. Could anyone possibly blame me? Have you looked at this stuff? I think perhaps it's a stupendous conspiracy that law-making and the Congressional Record are as dry as possible to prevent all but the most stalwart citizen involvement. Reading a bill makes me want to stick a fork in my EYE. Hey, at least it's all searchable on the Internet, right?

Here's the deal. From what I've gleaned so far, The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) was designed to "end the use of nonfederal, or 'soft money' (money raised outside the limits and prohibitions of federal campaign finance law) for activity affecting federal elections", according to the FEC website. The problem is that it resulted in the 527's we saw last year sprouting up all over the place and causing a ruckus. I'm not a against a ruckus, generally speaking. I think it's great how much more involved in politicking the average citizen has become in the last ten years or so, thanks to magical musical Internet (Hell, look at me). The best part about it is that it lets the moonbats get involve and completely discredit themselves! But I digress.

Something even the moonbats can get behind is this Online Freedom of Speech Act. What the BCRA has done is increase the influnce of the Internet on politics, as I'm sure anybody could plainly see last year. This has naturally resulted in the FEC seeking to regulate it. Luckily a lot of Senators think that's a bad idea, mostly because it serves their interest to keep the Internet unregulated so they can get around the BCRA. Bloggers are almost 100% behind the Online Freedom of Speech Act, because it also serves their (our?) interest. I guess I don't see the point of regulating the Internet. The more regulation on communication that exists, the harder it is to communicate. Same as regulating business just makes it harder to do business.

Ron at Likelihood of Confusion is against the Online Freedom of Speech Act because it doesn't go far enough. I like his thinking here, and he's not alone. Why are we creating a sperate right of free speech for bloggers? Free speech is free speech, why should bloggers be the only ones entitled to it? Perhaps the realization that the BCRA impinges upon bloggers' free speech should be a wake-up call to Congress that, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's predictable 5-4 ruling that the BCRA does not restrict free speech, the BCRA does, in fact, restrict free speech!

Why is Congress so intent upon making bad law? Why is the Supreme Court so intent upon upholding bad law? It's nice that everyone thinks that those nasty rich folks can't buy their very own politicians anymore, but now you have groups like MoveOn.org thinking that they've bought the politicians. Does anyone really think that the BCRA cleaned up politics?

EDIT: By the way, the Online Freedom of Speech Act was voted down today. I've already written Congressman Jim Ramstad, who (while I no longer vote in his district) voted against it and represents my family. List of Reps who voted against it is in the RedState article.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home