Tom,
My use of " " around "reform" is not intended to convey the contempt you think it is - it is intended to convey that this is what a loose alliance of people choose to call themselves. I am honestly attempting to quickly identify a collection of people and groups, and I think most on this list quickly know who this term refers to, and at the same time understand that their views, though generally pointing them in the same direction, may differ on particular issues or desired end goals - in much the same way we can refer to Republicans or Democrats without fear of confusion. In fact, the community to which I refer routinely refers to itself as, "the reform community" (see e.g. http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={F01F57D8-7E6D-4233-A788-53E18109E23D}&DE={A25ACE7C-3DC5-43FE-BA47-68AC3FD4A8AC} <http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={F01F57D8-7E6D-4233-A788-53E18109E23D}&DE={A25ACE7C-3DC5-43FE-BA47-68AC3FD4A8AC> ; http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/a!
ttachments/1200.pdf p.5, and you have been known to lump them (and yourself?) together as "the reform community." http://www.brookings.edu/views/interviews/mann/20020402.htm last comment ). They are regularly identified as such - and are apparently happy to be so identified - by the media (see e.g. http://reforminstitute.org/cgi-data/article/files/163.shtml) <http://reforminstitute.org/cgi-data/article/files/163.shtml> . I put the phrase in quotes because I refuse to cede to them the semantic ground of "reform" - just as they have always refused to cede it to me. I could - and sometimes do - refer to the "pro-regulatory," community, without quotes, but that is a bit awkward and I think equally upsetting to some members of that community. But your request is fair. I wonder if, at the same time, I and "other members of the listserve" can henceforth be identified - without quotes - as the "free speech community?" Deal?
Meanwhile, may I note that respect and nuance need to flow both ways. I and many others of varying views have received precious little respect or nuance from many members of that community for a very long time, being subject to open name-calling, slurs, incivility in debate, and at least in my case, to having outright fabrications told and repeated about some of my activities, some of it done in ways so as to imply that I may have violated the law. This has often occured in public fora, including on this list (without, I believe, encountering pleas for more civility). But your point is well taken. I would greatly appreciate debate on the merits of the particular issue, rather than the ad hominem attacks to which I have been subjected with some frequency for many years, and I will try to make my points in a similar fashion. I appreciate, by the way, that you, Tom, have never engaged in such ad hominem attacks on me. I do hope that you will also gently admonish those on !
the other side of the debate who have, I think, been far more incivil that merely putting quotation marks around words.
To others on the list, I simply apologize for what must be a boring exchange, and I will take anything further off-list.
Best,
Brad Smith
________________________________
From: Thomas Mann [mailto:TMANN@brookings.edu]
Sent: Fri 3/17/2006 4:56 PM
To: Smith, Brad; election-law
Subject: RE: "CDT Responds to Markos"
A modest request to Brad Smith and other members of the list serve. Your views of the "so-called reform community" are well known to all members of this list serve. Some of us share those views, others do not. But in the spirit of civil discussion and debate, we would all benefit if you could refrain from repeating the same characterization that drips with contempt for those on the other side of the debate. By my count, Brad manages five such references in his latest offering below. Should those who disagree with Brad qualify all references to him as "someone who espouses the repeal or constitutional overturning of all campaign finance laws"? And since the "reform community" is characterized in unitary terms, should Brad and Bob Bauer also be treated as two peas in a pod, even though they have clear differences on some aspects of campaign finance law? Let's all, myself included, try to debate the merits of the particular issue under discussion and not caricature those !
with whom we disagree.
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 4:01 PM
To: election-law
Subject: RE: "CDT Responds to Markos"
I think that John Morris's heart and intentions are in the right place. CDT solicited a great deal of comment on their proposal from a wide variety of people in an effort to find consensus. Moreover, I think that CDT's intention in drafting what became H.R. 4900 was a good faith effort to extend broad protection to internet activity, and in many ways it is successful in that goal. It is certainly better than what the traditional "reform" community wants, filed comments for at the FEC, and sued for in Court, and in that sense it is a compromise. Additionally, it is true that it extends some protections to the internet that H.R. 1606 simply does not address, although it is not entirely clear that the so-called "reform" community agrees that H.R. 4900 extends those protections. (And there is no reason that H.R. 1606 could not have passed, and then CDT could have pursued those other issues.)
John is wrong, however, in writing that "Bob [Bauer] is holding you [Kos] and the entire blogging community hostage to further his anti-campaign finance goals." Quite the contrary, had John not allowed a desperate "reform" community the life preserver of H.R. 4900, it is very likely that H.R. 1606 would have passed the House yesterday. H.R. 4900 served to confuse the issue and give some pro-regulatory legislators cover for what would otherwise be a very unpopular position. So the real question is, which bill is superior?
I think that 1606 is superior to the CDT approach in two key ways. The first problem with H.R. 4900 is that it is not clean. Under 1606, the internet community can feel comfortable knowing that a great deal of its activity is simply off-limits to the regulators. This allows one to enter the debate with security. Under 4900, with its various thresholds, the internet community has to watch its back. Have the spending thresholds been passed? It is very easy for anyone to bring a complaint, and then it will often be a fact investigation as to what was actually done, and whether it was done within the law. And because it is more complicated, people will feel less comfortable about their legal rights.
The second problem with HR 4900 is that does not protect some sites at all. Why shouldn't a site be protected merely because it has become successful? The CDT's answer is that such a blog would fall under its press exemption. But as Bob Bauer points out, it is not at all clear that the so-called "reform" community thinks that. I cannot forget that during the FEC's still-pending internet rule-making, the "reform" community commented urging the FEC to adopt a standard for internet regulation that, when pressed at oral hearing, they admitted they thought was probably outside the FEC's power; and when pressed further, they would not agree not to sue the FEC if it adopted that standard of internet regulation that they were recommending.
There really has been no case made that the FEC rule, in effect for since McCain-Feingold became law, is a problem. We're through a cycle and a half, and the "reformers'" horror stories have not come true. So I prefer the simpler language of H.R. 1606, codifying that rule, to a new approach. Later legislation can address some of the other issues included in 4900.
I remain confident that one bill or the other will pass, so John's "hostage" comment remains out of place.
Bradley A. Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Columbus, Ohio
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:40 PM
To: election-law
Subject: Re: "CDT Responds to Markos"
UPDATE: And here <http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/3/15/222216/199/31?mode=alone;showrate=1#c31> is another posting, responding to Bob Bauer's criticisms.
Rick Hasen wrote:
"CDT Responds to Markos"
John Morris of CDT has posted this response <http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/3/15/16415/5712/46?mode=alone;showrate=1#c46> on the Kos website regarding the choice between, among other options, HR 1606 and HR 4900 (the CDT alternative). A snippet:
Let me address how DailyKos would be affected under HR 4900. I believe that DailyKos would be deemed to be news media (which HR 4900 would permit but HR 1606 does not address). So you and the blog would have no obligations under the rules. More generally, I believe that all or almost all blogs would be fully protected by HR 4900, either because they do not spend more than $5000 for advocacy, or because they are news media, or both.
Very interesting. If that's the intention, then perhaps the language of HR 4900 should be drafted to make this fact more self evident