He’s remarkably impressive in his determination to demonstrate how ignorant he is:
The FEC, in their ruling said “First, the complaint does not allege, nor does publicly available information indicate, that Kos Media is owned or controlled by a political party, committee, or candidate.” (Page 5, lines 17-18). They state this because if there was such an allegation or if Kos Media was a political committee, the media exemption doesn’t apply. The problem is the entire complaint’s sole focus is the fact that Kos Media is a political committee. That was exactly what I alleged. They simply ignored that, pretended I was alleging something else, and dismissed the complaint. This means with about a two-page long pleading and a $350 filing fee, this decision could be overturned trivially on appeal.
So go for it, John. Don’t just act like a fool, be the fool. In fact, if you do get it turned over on appeal, I’ll pay the $350.
The point is the law always had a press exemption and Daily Kos fits that press exemption the same way Fired Up! did.
From the Fired Up! Opinion:
The Act and Commission regulations define the terms “contribution” and
“expenditure” to include any gift of money or “anything of value” for the purpose of influencing a Federal election. See 2 U.S.C. 431(8)(A) and (9)(A); 11 CFR 100.52(a) and 100.111(a). However, there is an exception for “any cost incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by any broadcasting station (including a cable television operator, programmer or producer), newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication . . . unless the facility is owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate[.]” 11 CFR 100.73, 100.132; see also 2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)(i). This exclusion is known as the “press exception.”
The Commission has applied a two-step analysis to determine whether the press exception applies. First, the Commission asks whether the entity engaging in the activity is a press entity as described by the Act and Commission regulations. See, e.g., Advisory Opinions 2004-07, 2003-34, 2000-13, 1998-17, 1996-48, 1996-41, and 1996-16. Second, in determining the scope of the exception, the Commission considers: (1) whether the
press entity is owned or controlled by a political party, political committee, or candidate; and (2) whether the press entity is acting as a press entity in conducting the activity at issue (i.e., whether the entity is acting in its “legitimate press function”). See Reader’s Digest Association v. FEC, 509 F. Supp. 1210, 1215 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); FEC v. Phillips Publishing, 517 F. Supp. 1308, 1312-1313 (D.D.C. 1981); Advisory Opinions 2004-07, 2000-13, 1996-48, and 1982-44. Two considerations in applying this analysis include whether the entity’s materials are available to the general public and are comparable in form to those ordinarily issued by the entity. See Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238, 251 (1986); Advisory Opinion 2000-13 (concluding that a website covered by the press exception was “viewable by the general public and akin to a periodical or news program distributed to the general public.”)
====
According to the House report on the 1974 amendments to the Act, the press exception made plain Congress’s intent that the Act would not “limit or burden in any way the first amendment freedoms of the press …” and would assure “the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV networks, and other media to cover and comment on political campaigns.” H.R. Rep. No. 93-1239, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. at 4 (1974) (emphasis added). Consistent with this intent, the Commission has already expressly extended the press exception to qualified activities that appear on the Internet. For instance, in Advisory Opinion 2000-13 the Commission found that iNEXTV, a company operating a network of specialized news and information websites with limited original content, qualified for
the press exception through its Internet activities even though it lacked a traditional “offline” media presence. The Commission concluded that iNEXTV and its EXBTV website were press entities “both as to their purpose and function.” Advisory Opinion 2000-13. The Commission characterized the network of news and information websites operated by iNEXTV as “webcast video periodicals.” Id. In finding EXBTV to be a press entity, the Commission noted the “news function” that EXBTV provided through direct access to news and commentary. The Commission concluded that the website was “viewable by the general public and akin to a periodical or news program distributed to 10 the general public.” Id.The Commission reaches the same conclusion here with respect to the Fired Up websites described in your request. Thus, Fired Up is a press entity and satisfies the first step of the press exception test.
2. Ownership Criteria and Legitimate Press Function
11
Fired Up is a for-profit LLC and is not owned or controlled by any political
party, political committee, or candidate. Given that Fired Up’s operation of its websites is at the core of its activities as a press entity, its provision of news stories, commentary,and editorials on its websites falls within Fired Up’s legitimate press function.Thus, because Fired Up is a press entity, and neither it nor its websites are owned or controlledby any political party, political committee, or candidate, the costs Fired Up incurs in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial on its websites are exempt from the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure.” The Commission notes that anentity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity in a news story, commentary, or editorial, even if the news story, commentary, or editorial expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office. See First General Counsel’s Report, MUR5440 (CBS Broadcasting, Inc.) (“Even seemingly biased stories or commentary by a press entity can fall within the media exemption.”)
The Commission expresses no opinion regarding the application of State law or
the Internal Revenue Code to the proposed activities because those questions are not within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning the application of the
Act and Commission regulations to the specific transaction or activity set forth in your request. See 2 U.S.C. 437f. The Commission emphasizes that, if there is a change in anof the facts or assumptions presented, and such facts or assumptions are material to a conclusion presented in this advisory opinion, then the requestor may not rely on that conclusion as support for its proposed activity.
By the fact that Daily Kos isn’t owned by a committee and fits the definition of press, it’s exempt from being classified as a political committee. It cannot be a political committee because it is a press outlet. Beyond that, it’s one person, and one person does not constitute a committee.
That Bambenek appears to not have read the relevant decisions that have been supported by the courts demonstrates his desperate need for attention regardless of whether he makes himself look like a fool.
ArchPundit