Why are Dems Opposing This?

[whatbogsends]

I'd support that, at least who was financing who would be out in the open at that point.

But here's the thing. By enacting this bill, which circumvents the campaign restrictions, the financing of internet web sites from political parties would NOT be out in the open. This bill essentially makes it legal for that information to be hidden.

 

[hippie]

HR 1606 is one of those little bills that lies about what it actually does. It purports to prevent the FCC from shutting down any website that comments on the campaign. What it really does is prevent the FCC from shutting down any website funded by a political party. In other words, it's a cute back door for the Republicans to pour millions of dollars in soft money over the internet.

Here's the entire arguement against it basically:
http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F}&DE={A5D97D5A-D53C-4EEC-9334-80932F81E787}

It's a classic Trojan Horse bill.

Don't you mean the Democrats and the Republicans? Unless you think that the Democrats would never do anything like that?!?!? Can you say Move on.org?

 

[Alarum]

Don't you mean the Democrats and the Republicans? Unless you think that the Democrats would never do anything like that?!?!? Can you say Move on.org?

Funny, but it's the republicans who are sponsoring this bill and the democrats who are opposing it, so in this case, yes, I can say Republicans. Without a qualm.

 

[Voegelin]

George Soros, Peter Lewis, Herb & Marion Sandler and Steve Bing gave over $75 million to Kerry groups in 2004. Unprecedented money. More money than the candidates got in matching funds from the Federal government. GOP has no donors, individuals or corporations, who contribute as much as any one of those five. They and the rest of the Soros 70 (a group of 70 multimillionaires and billionaires who met in Arizona last year to coordinate donations to elect liberals) have the lawyers and accountants to file the piles of documents the FEC may require to engage in political speech on the internet.

Conservatives do not. The bloggers which took down Dan Rather could not have done it had the FEC been monitoring and pestering them. That is what this is all about. Liberals want their super rich donors and the liberal media to have a monopoly on political speech in America. They know FEC regulations will force conservative blogs out while liberal blogs (funded by Soros) have the money to pay the lawyers to make the FEC happy.

They do not want grass roots activists (unless they create them themselves by pouring millions into groups such as "America Coming Together" and "MoveOn.org") having their voices heard.

While liberals talk about a "level playing field" they never want one.

 

[Jetgirl]

But here's the thing. By enacting this bill, which circumvents the campaign restrictions, the financing of internet web sites from political parties would NOT be out in the open. This bill essentially makes it legal for that information to be hidden.

What I meant was that if there were clear corporate sponsors of politician, such as the other poster was suggesting, it would be out in the open.

Kind of like NASCAR drivers.

What I'm failing to see here is a compelling argument why any censorship of the internet in any realm is a good idea. I see major problems down the line if this is allowed to go through.

 

[MaryS]

Funny, but it's the republicans who are sponsoring this bill and the democrats who are opposing it, so in this case, yes, I can say Republicans. Without a qualm.

Mostly Republicans! Two Democrats were listed as "cosponsors" of the bill, and I don't consider Conyers of Michigan to be a lightweight Democrat.

The title of the bill is somewhat deceiving, though, based on what I found at the government site about the bill.

BILL TITLE: Online Freedom of Speech Act
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll559.xml
225-182, failed to get the 2/3 required for passage

text of bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1606:
Summary:
Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.
COSPONSORS:
Rep Bishop, Rob [R-UT-1], Rep Boucher, Rick [D-VA-9], Rep Cannon, Chris [R-UT-3], Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14], Rep Flake, Jeff [R-AZ-6], Rep Kennedy, Mark R. [R-MN-6], Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [R-CO-4],Rep Paul, Ron [R-TX-14],Rep Ryan, Tim [R-OH-17]

 

[Voegelin]

The title of the bill is somewhat deceiving

How so? Says the FEC shall have no power to regulate communication on the internet.

Protecting freedom of speech is exactly what the bill does.

In a way, I hope Democrats push this censorship to the point of fines and prison time. Let everyone see exactly who we are dealing with here.

There will be massive civil disobedience. Netizens won't put up with it.