I understand all that. What you haven't answered, however, is what
activity you believe bloggers could be engaging in that would disqualify
them from the press exemption, given that things such as excessive
partisanship and even fundraising are well within established precedent
for what non-Internet media can do.
Also, I apologize to anyone who was offended by the tone at the end of
my last remark. As I explained to another member of the list, I'm a
member of Generation X. Sarcasm is a default response for us.
--Adam
--------------------------------------------------------
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 6:38 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject:
Adam:
1.) You say "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..." SEE Comments, attached, filed with FEC in AOR
2005-16
2.) You say " 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?"
The answer is simply that the newspaper most likely qualifies
for the press exemption, and the blog site may or may not. Put
differently, they aren't treated differently--both incorporated entities
are subject to the same corporate prohibitions unless exempt under the
"press" clause. What Congress and the Courts have said so far is that
not every incorporated entity (or even every incorporated entity
claiming to be "the press") is in fact exempt from the corporate
prohibition merely by styling themselves as "press".
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf
of Bonin, Adam C.
Sent: Thu 9/29/2005 5:54 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Cc:
Subject: RE: McCain statement on Internet regulation
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
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.