The MSM/DNC is at it again...trying to eliminate a level playing field so they can control your thoughts and tell you how to vote (HT: Captain's Quarters).
Brian Faler of the WaPo has a provocative article in today's paper. He writes about upcoming Congressional action that would exempt bloggers from proposed FEC rules on the Internet (i.e., restriction of First Amendment rights). Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):
You could almost hear the blogosphere sigh with relief earlier this spring when federal election officials indicated that they did not plan to crack down on bloggers who write about politics.
The Federal Election Commission, which has been considering issuing new regulations on a range of political activities on the Internet -- and was said by some to be contemplating taking a tough stance on the online commentators -- revealed in late March that it intends to be much less aggressive than many had feared. But now some observers are wondering whether the FEC is not being aggressive enough when it comes to one category of bloggers: those who take money from political campaigns.
Question is...who are these "observers" who wonder about an "aggressive" FEC? Hmmm. Read on...
Those who want additional disclosure requirements said they fear that [putting bloggers on campaign payrolls] will become increasingly common as politicians become more sophisticated in using the Internet, as blogs attract larger audiences and as more mainstream news outlets report on -- and amplify -- what the blogosphere is saying.
True...further acknowledgment of the power of blogs.
Faler tries to achieve some balance (though it is at the end of the article) and points out (emphasis added):
But their complaints are meeting skepticism from those who say additional reporting requirements are not only unnecessary but would be legally suspect and difficult to enforce.
Some said, for example, that campaigns routinely take a magnifying glass to their opponents' finance reports -- and can be relied upon to publicize any unannounced payments to bloggers. And some said such requirements would impose obligations on bloggers that are not expected of anyone else who takes money from campaigns and then sounds off on them in other media, such as letters to newspapers or calls to radio shows.
Exactly...you could also include respondents to snap polls, members of a live studio audience, or people/families featured in a news report. Too bad the article quickly concludes before we can explore these traditional MSM/DNC tricks.
So what is the basis of this article? Captain Ed' makes a great point is his appraisal (emphasis added):
This article wants to scare people, and Congress, into fighting the proposed exemption for bloggers by creating a strawman of rampant corruption in the blogosphere that doesn't exist. Even if campaigns decided to start "buying" bloggers, it would only reflect their ignorance of the marketplace. After all, why buy what one can get for free? Most of us write for our own purposes, not that of a candidate or party, and what revenue we need to justify our expense and time we generate through advertising. Buying a blogger might be more arguable for disclosure simply as a sign of cluelessness.
The so-called reformers reveal themselves again as more frightened of the power of free speech and the inability of former media elites toe control the information flow. They want to regulate us into silence and clear the field for the Exempt Media to once again tell people what to believe. Fortunately for the rest of us, those days have long since gone by.
Indeed. Again, this is another attempt by the MSM/DNC under the guise of "campaign finance reform" to use the federal government to control our access to information. For more information on the history of "campaign finance reform" and the assault on free speech...see previous posts.
