To understand the threat of FEC regulation of the internet I suggest a review of the Zack Exley complaint. A complaint was filed by the George W. Bush campaign that a personal website expressing an indivdual's opinion was an independent expenditure that failed to provide a disclaimer and failed to report to the FEC. Click the following hyperlinks for a picture of the nightmare we must stop:

http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqsdocs/00002399.pdf Complaint Against Zack Exley
http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqsdocs/0000239B.pdf Notification of Complaint to Zack Exley
http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqsdocs/0000239D.pdf Grant of Extension of Time to Zack Exley
http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqsdocs/0000239E.pdf Response from Zack Exley
http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqsdocs/0000239F.pdf General Counsel's Report
http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqsdocs/000023A2.pdf Notification to Zack Exley

How Can We Stop the FEC

I have signed the online petition, written my Congressman and Senators, posted articles praising Harry Reid's bill and Congressman John Conyer's remarks on my website. Redstate.org and Phillipics have blogs tracking the day to day. But will reporting be enough? Have other Senators signed on to Harry Reid's bill? Is the petition still gaining signatures at the rate it was several weeks ago?

As the day when I eagerly sign up for cosmetic surgery fast approaches, Mike, I'm taking your warning seriously. But let me draw a few lines in response to the points you've made, political lines, that is, not crows' feet.

I spent 10 years of my career as a reporter in Washington, D.C. so for these and other reasons, I have a hard time getting too upset about the eminent arrival of draconian regulation that will knock me out of business. Like all bureaucracies, the Federal Elections Commission is an imperfect body, one that's going to grapple with the changes technology is making slowly and awkwardly. Nevertheless, I'll grant you this from the start: I'm a liberal Democrat living in California. There's a good chance I wouldn't know a draconian regulation even if it opened my checkbook and helped itself to my paltry earnings.

But, let's be clear. I'm not suggesting or even idly contemplating the thought that that bloggers be forced by the commission to disclose their funding sources. I'm saying that if you are a blogger who wants the media exemption and you take that exemption, you should disclose your funding to your reader so they can best judge your work. That's what advertising is, really. A way for reader to know – easily and quickly – how you make your money. I'm perfectly happy to leave it to bloggers to decide how they define themselves, to allow them whatever freedom they want in claiming an exemption. Ultimately, their readers will decide how credible they are or aren't.

Let me also pause here and make a point that needs to be made about the difference between those of us who will think the press exemption is enough to, as one of my critics put it "hide behind" and those who don't. It's really not an issue if you're working press and view your website, as I do, as an extension of that career. We often – frequently – have to fight for access and information. We think it's part of the gig. Press credential don't give us approval to do our jobs. They make our jobs easier – particularly at heavy-guarded events – but they're not the magic ticket of credibility that so many bloggers think they are. They are not licenses to practice journalism. There is not -- there should not be -- such a system. That's one reason why I am standing away from the FEC fight. I will not make that concession.

But I digress. As I said, I don't think bloggers shouldn't be required by the law to disclose funding. But I think that campaigns should be required to disclose payments to anyone they support. How do we define "support"? Well, let's be generous: Folks who get paid by the campaigns should be considered agents if they're receiving a salary-like sum of money, say more than $50,000 a year in a combination of salary, support and services, for their on-line efforts. A lot of money is going to move off TV and out of direct mail advertising on to the web. I'd rather have the meat-world rules migrate sooner rather than later.

More importantly, Mike, I don't see this particular rule-making as a chance to undo the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act. I'm weary of the reform-minded arguments about leveling the playing field; on that you and I are probably closer than you realize. Even a hardcore old-line capital "L" liberal like me recognizes that there really are limits to how the government can control behavior and those limits get substantially reduced on-line. The 'net has given everyone who wants one a combination TV, radio and newspaper printing press megaphone to say what they want, when they want. And I love chaos enough to say, "What the hell, let's see what happens."

But instead of dumping the law or creating a new set of FEC rules just for the Internet, or setting that regulatory nightmare up as a straw man to bash until your heart's content, I'd propose that we improve the reach and scope of the legislation by moving even closer to its intent. Let's speed up the various processes by which the FEC asks campaigns to report and disclose information. Let's bring transparency to elections.

If a corporate sale and marketing teams working in different offices around the country can all get on-line and view the same documents and the same reports at the same time, all the while IMing snide comments to their co-workers, then political campaigns can be required to file their nightly receipts on line when they fill out their bank deposit. It shouldn't be hard to do and having to find, buy and build a truly integrated on-line reporting and tracking system might teach the commission a great deal about how this Internet thing actually works.

The commission can then post campaign information, just as it does now, on its website where everyone would be free to review it. We'd all know where the money was going, where it came from, and how much got there. Asking the FEC to take the lead in this process, to catch up, if you will, to the realities of campaign finance for the 21st Century isn’t a bad idea. It's more than you want; it's less than reformers want. But it's a start. It'll keep some folks honest, some on their toes and – who knows – it might even do a little bit of good.