Host of Comments Filed on FEC Proposed Internet Regulation

Comments filed by a host of groups and individuals concerned with proposed regulation of Internet communications by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) reflect a general sense that the Internet should be largely unregulated, but disagreement over details. Over 1,000 groups, bloggers and others signed a Statement of Principles calling for protection of this “unique and powerful First Amendment forum.” Comments from three reform groups opposed a per se exemption for organizations. OMB Watch comments recommended a hands-off approach. The FEC proceeding is the result of an order from a federal court to reconsider its exemption of Internet communications from campaign finance regulations. A public hearing will be held in late June. No date for publication of a final rule has been set. Many of the comments reflect agreement that individual activity on the Internet should be exempt, but the campaign finance reform groups suggest this apply only when personal or public computers are used. They suggest limiting individual use of office/corporate equipment to one hour a week. They say this is necessary to prevent corruption to they political system by "very large sums of money." The Center for Democracy and Technology comments called for exemptions for individuals and bloggers. The eligibility of bloggers and online publications for the FEC’s media exemption demonstrates the difficulties of applying pre-Internet area law to Internet communications. Several different proposals are made in the comments, but all suffer from difficulties presented by the blurry lines that separate the press from bloggers, advertisers and advocacy groups that publish on websites. The OMB Watch comments said, “Attempts to use the exemption from regulation for the press would only create confusion and arbitrary outcomes.” The comments note, "To stretch the existing press exemption shoe to fit the big foot of Internet publishing will render the press exemption meaningless." Application of disclaimer rules to bloggers that are paid by candidates or parties is another area of hot debate. While OMB Watch believes the public should be informed when candidates are paying for what appears to be independent speech, it also believes this issue is not unique to Internet communications. It would be better to address it in another forum, and not create more restrictive rules for Internet communications than off-line publications. The comments filed by OMB Watch ask that the FEC "step back and allow the Internet to flourish as a public square where all are invited and all can be heard." The comments note that the Internet has empowered ordinary citizens, as seen in the 2004 election, and that key assumptions justifying regulation of campaign finance do not apply to most Internet communications. The comments propose that Internet postings and emails on one’s own site be exempted from the definition of regulated contributions or expenditures. This would "allow people full use of the Internet to engage in politics without fear…", but "would leave unaffected payments made for banner ads or other forms of Internet advertising on other people’s websites." The increased interest in voter education and mobilization by nonpartisan nonprofits in 2004, much of it occurring on the Internet, was cited as a development that should be "applauded and nurtured," and not lost to regulation based on “speculative harms.” A website operated by OMB Watch, NPAction.org, provided tools to assist nonprofits with these efforts and saw heavy traffic during the election season. The comments demonstrate that "many of the underlying premises of campaign finance regulation do not hold on the Internet." For example:
  • The link between money and influence is reduced, since "[o]pen access forecloses dominance by the well situated or by the wealthy."
  • Campaign finance regulation assumes that "the source, the publisher and the audience are easily distinguished." This creates problems defining how the rule restricting republication of candidate materials would apply to common Internet tools, such as links, forums or audio/video communications. The comments argue against limiting these kinds of Internet communications.
back to Blog