I guess I just don't understand how a case-by-case approach is at all
well suited for the unsophisticated, un-moneyed speakers we're largely
dealing with here. These are people who don't have the foggiest idea
how to file for an advisory opinion and, quite frankly, there's only one
of me to go around (and I can't go around all the time doing pro bono
work).
And to my knowledge, neither CLC nor Democracy21 nor IPDI nor anyone
else has pointed to an existing blog that *wouldn't* merit the
exemption, given how broadly the rule has been interpreted (I'm thinking
especially of Advisory Opinion 1980-109, regarding a newsletter that did
fundraising, as well as the MTV case.) As long as a website isn't owned
or controlled by a regulated entity (candidate/party/PAC/etc.), under
what possible circumstances could it not merit the exception?
By forcing this into a case-by-case exemption instead of focusing on
already-regulated entities, you're bringing literally millions of people
within FEC scrutiny who otherwise would have no reason to know that a
company called "Phillips Publishing" ever existed. The idea that we're
going to take the people who are spending the least money on political
activity (yet still have a potentially transformative effect thereupon)
and forcing them to figure out which FEC-granted box they're going to
squeeze into . . . As Ricky Watters said following his first
Philadelphia Eagles game, "For who? For what?"
By the way, thank you for explaining to me that "Much law (not just
election law) is based on distinction by category [sic]". I must have
missed that day in law school. With that out of the way, could you
explain why writers for an Internet site that is incorporated for
liability purposes should be treated any differently from writers for a
newspaper which has incorporated for liability purposes?
--Adam
-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Potter [mailto:TP@Capdale.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:37 PM
To: Bonin, Adam C.; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: RE: McCain statement on Internet regulation
Adam:
Speaking only for myself, here are a couple of thoughts in response to
your questions:
1.) "Opposing granting bloggers easy access to the media exemption" is
not the same as opposing all such access.As you know from reading CLC's
filings (I assume you read them as you link to them in your post), many
blogs may qualify as media entities--but that is not automatic under the
FEC's caselaw, and that seems the right balence .
2.) As CLC argued to the Commission, the individual volunteer exemption
should be construed broadly--which is likely to cover the vast majority
of bloggers. The June CLC Comments explain how the exemption should work
in detail.
3.) Much law (not just election law) is based on distinction by
catagory, such as whether someone has voluntarily chosen the privileges
and responsibilities of a corporate form of doing business. Incorporated
entities are treated differently under the election laws. That does not
mean they are necessarily doing anything prohibited by the rules, but
rather changes the question from whether they have an individual
volunteer exemption to whether they are aiding a candidate in their
normal course of busineess (such as by selling services), or are acting
as a press entity (see above).
Trevor Potter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of
Bonin, Adam C.
Sent: Thu 9/29/2005 2:49 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Cc:
Subject: RE: McCain statement on Internet regulation
Trevor, do you, Sen. McCain or any other pro-regulation types
have any
thoughts on what specific regulation would protect "bloggers"
(and other
new Internet speech forms, like podcasting?) but exclude
everything you
want to exclude, given that the CLC opposes granting bloggers
easy
access to the media exception? Do you really want every kid
with a
keyboard to have to file for an Advisory Opinion on a
case-by-case
basis? And what happens to group or incorporated blogs?
(http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/attachments/1381.pdf)
Also, when are you going to go after Sean Hannity's media
exception?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509200007?is_gsa=1&final=1
Adam C. Bonin
Cozen O'Connor
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 665-2051
Fax: (215) 701-2321
--------------------------------------------------------
Notice: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we
inform you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax
advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended
or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose
of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue
Service.
--------------------------------------------------------
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain
information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or
other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be
conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient
of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or
agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to
the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this
communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return
e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without
reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including
attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other
than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or
other privilege.
--------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of
Trevor
Potter
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 1:51 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: RE: McCain statement on Internet regulation
For technological reasons I cannot explain, my machine sent my
message
to the List Serve with no text. Let me try again: here it is:
Following the hearings of the House Administration Committee
last week,
Senator McCain has written that Committee to oppose proposals
that would
exempt "public communications" on the Internet from BCRA. This
is an
issue currently remanded to the FEC for Rulemaking by the DC
District
Court, and the subject of several proposals in Congress. McCain
argues
that the legislative proposals would allow soft money back into
federal
elections.
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/attachments/1427.pdf
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-> To
ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we
inform you
that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice
contained
in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot
be used,
for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the
Internal
Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to
another
party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It
is from
a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any
disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this
communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To
ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained
in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another
party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from
a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.