“Bloggers want it both ways,” said Carol Darr, head of the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet at George Washington University. “They want to preserve their rights as political activists, donors and even fundraisers — activities regulated by campaign finance laws — yet, at the same time, enjoy the broad exemptions from the campaign finance laws afforded to traditional journalists.”
She and others said they fear that giving bloggers those protections would create a legal loophole that corporations, unions and wealthy individuals could use to pour big money into politics. A company or union, for example, would be able to create or subsidize elaborate blogs attacking political candidates. Or it could create hard-hitting Web videos that, as the popular “Jib Jab” video ridiculing both President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) indicated last year, can attract large audiences
Bunkum. Pure bunkum.
First, the term traditional media is horribly abused by this woman and I sentence her to a Political Science 101 class where at least one week will discuss the role of the press in politics and Yellow Journalism. It was protected by the First Amendment as was the partisan press at the time of the founders. Originally, journalists were essentially activists and there is a long history of activist and advocacy journalism.
It’s friggen’ shocking that someone at Georgetown is this ignorant of history and the development of the press. There is not an astrisk in the First Amendment that exempts partisan press outlets largely because the press when it was passed, was partisan.
Second, Buckley v. Valeo guarantees that wealthy individuals can pour money into political campaigns. This is a point that virtually nobody understands. A single individual can spend as much money as they want as an individual to promote causes or candidates as they so wish. The one thing they cannot do is coordinate those expenditures with others. Wealthy individuals can spend as much as they like so that’s a really friggen’ stupid objection.
Third, unions are able to create blogs now. There are two examples to your right. Corporations can too.
The issue she seems to be getting at, but doesn’t really know how to get to is that theoretically a campaign or a campaign committee could pay an individual to blog and do so about specific races such as the Thune bloggers in South Dakota. The thing is–that has to be disclosed by the campaign if it’s over $100. Just like a TV Commentator or “analyst” on Fox News or MSNBC or CNN, someone receiving money from the campaign has that relationship disclosed by campaign finance reports (unfortunately not by the cable news channels).
If I’m fundraising for candidates, I’m not doing anything, but sending individual donors to a page. If you want to claim that a hypertext link has value then I guess one could claim I’m making an inkind donation, but then so would the Nation when it publishes a candidate’s web site address or says a candidate is worth supporting. The money is still disclosed by the campaign and there is then transparency.
The one issue that could creep up is if a blogger is paid by a media consultant second hand. My reading is that such a relationship is currently a violation of the law, but I could certainly be wrong. Even if I am wrong, one doesn’t have to eliminate the media exemption for all blogs, one can simply require that such a relationship be explicitly disclosed in campaign finance filings.
So activists are often journalists and so covered by a media exemption if it’s in print. What’s different about electrons?
Nothing.
So fundraisers often suggest you donate to campaigns–what’s different if that is on-line instead of in person at barbeque?
Nothing.
So I can donate to a campaign as a blogger. A member of the media can donate (depending on employer rules) to a campaign. What’s the difference?
Nothing.
Now, how would I spend money if I’m a corporation if I want to get my message across? A cool web site or a subsidize a talking head at a think tank? Ohhhhhhh…wait, corporations already do the second, but it doesn’t concern Ms. Darr.
I hate to tell you this, but Exxon Mobile can create a news magazine tomorrow and it’ll be covered by the media exemption. It’s just that it’ll be ineffective because no one will take it seriously and there are more effective means of advocacy for them.
Finally, she’s worried about Jib Jab? The horrors of political satire. Can you imagine a political writer who uses satire to skewer politicians–the horrors.