Reading the Fine Print

Even that brave warrior, John Kerry, trembles before the great pajama-clad unwashed.

“… there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?"

Well. It appears that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has an answer. Since many others have long been on to the FEC’s attempt to expand the tenacles tenets of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002—better known as the McCain-Feingold Act--to blogs. While I did sign this letter for FEC Chairman Scott Thomas requesting an exemption for bloggers, Patterico thinks the letter should have a broader scope. He cites this portion of the letter,

While paid political advertising on the Internet should remain subject to FEC rules and regulations, curtailing blogs and other online publications will dampen the impact of new voices in the political process and will do a disservice to the millions of voters who rely on the web for original, insightful political commentary.

and responds,

In my view, political speech is speech at the core of the First Amendment. Neither the FEC nor any other government agency has any right to regulate it in any way. When my right to engage in such speech is threatened, my impulse is not to seek out a law carving out some exception for my speech. My impulse is to tell those responsible that they can go to hell.

Look at the big picture, folks. This isn’t about our precious Internet. It’s about the very concept of free speech.

What we’re seeing is not a crazy offshoot of campaign finance “reform” legislation. It’s a logical consequence of it. Something this important can’t be handled by legislation, and left to the whims of lawmakers and regulators. It is a constitutional issue, and affects all free speech. We must treat it that way.

Is anyone out there with me?

(Emphasis Patterico’s)

I think you may have a point, Counselor. Most of us--left and right--are in agreement that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional, but I think that we were beginning to resign ourselves to its existence, which is reflected in the letter. You may just be shaking us awake.

So now what? How do we legally dispatch McCain-Feingold?

You’re the lawyer, dude.

(Thanks to Tim Blair and Charles G. Hill)