The netroots have won. A March 27 decision by the Federal Election Commission on regulating political activity on the Internet actually did something it was supposed to do—protect free speech.
In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which put campaign- finance restrictions on public communications.\ The issue was with the broad definition of public communications, which included the phrase ""or any other form of general public political advertising."" Internet communications were specifically noted as not being regulated. Never before had there been more freedom on the Internet.
But the regulation was challenged in 2004 in Shays v. FEC, which claimed not all Internet communications could be excluded. The FEC set out to define what ""general public political advertising"" is and, subsequently, what would be defined as public communications and be subject to campaign-finance laws.
At this point the blogosphere went crazy. The right and the left joined together to fight any regulation of the Internet because it would possibly force them to register as a political committee—subjecting them to campaign-finance laws and, essentially, shutting them down. Thousands of bloggers and activists sent comments to the FEC by demanding their rights be protected. I, as a blogger, even sent in my comments.
So why, you may ask, would someone want to regulate the Internet's political speech? Because some feel it is full of soft money loopholes. In a letter, U.S. Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Marty Meehan, D-Mass., said non-regulation is ""allowing Washington lobbyists, corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals to spend huge amounts of soft money in coordination with federal candidates to buy campaign ads on the Internet."" If there ever was a loophole, it has now been closed.
The new rules now include only paid Internet advertising under its definition of public communication. This does not include other forms of media such as blogs, podcasts, linking and e-mail. The FEC stated, ""Through this rulemaking, the Commission recognizes the Internet as a unique and evolving mode of mass communication and political speech that is distinct from other media in a manner that warrants a restrained regulatory approach.""
They came to their ruling after realizing they had to fill the corruption loophole. By only regulating paid Internet advertising, they have done just that and also protected the new, emerging media. As long as you are using the Internet and not being paid by a campaign or party to do so, you are protected. Even if your site has advertising to help with cost, even if you are making a profit and even if you link to campaign materials. All protected.
Then there is the ""media exemption,"" which exempts the traditional media from campaign-finance laws. Bloggers asked to be included in the media exemption because they contend they are a new form of media. The new rules do just that. The FEC ""concludes that bloggers and others who communicate on the Internet are entitled to the press exemption in the same way as traditional media entities.""
This ruling will allow blogs to play an even more integral role in politics in the future. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean rode the netroots wave into the primaries of the 2004 presidential election. Russ Feingold is a blogger's dream—garnering 47 percent of the vote in a poll for the Democratic candidate for president on dailykos.com, the most prominent liberal blog.
Barack Obama, John Kerry, Russ Feingold and even Jimmy Carter have all posted on blogs. John Morris from the Center for Democracy and Technology said, ""I think bloggers will indeed gain more influence in elections because bloggers will keep both campaigns and mainstream media from ‘setting the agenda' too narrowly."" The new FEC regulations are a victory for the netroots and for the future of politics.
Erik Opsal is a sophomore studying political science and journalism. His column appears every Tuesday in The Daily Cardinal. Send comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.\
