There is obviously still plenty of debate among members of Congress on whether the Internet should be regulated. There seems to be an understanding, articulated best by Michael Krempasky of the right-leaning blog Redstate.org, that regulating the Internet would crush the "little guy" - the individual blogger or charity that blogs information, such as this one does.

Most charities are small, and run on tiny budgets. Regulation would chill nonprofit speech, because, as Krempasky most aptly states, "[e]ven if Congress determines that communications over the internet do not constitute “public communications” for the purposes of BCRA, bloggers and other small speakers are still facing considerable regulatory problems that can only serve to chill speech. While this legislation addresses a very specific provision of the statute, and I support its passage into law, it remains that an enterprising litigant or overactive regulator could easily force the weight of the rest of the law onto bloggers."

Here is another snippit:

"Free to speak their minds, Americans have proven to be surprisingly unchanged from when de Tocqueville spoke of our boundless “liberty of opinion,” creating a virtual community that is vibrant, entertaining, intellectual, and informative.

Even more important — it has created exactly the sort of political “utopia” that the so-called ‘campaign reformers’ ought to be praising. It’s an environment in which Big Money has no significant advantage over small speakers — a level playing field on which creativity and passion trump volume and muscle.

But instead, thanks to the consequences of a lawsuit and the vagaries of the FEC rule-making process, this thriving and popular medium faces the prospect of destruction.

Make no mistake: there can be no effective political regulation of the blogosphere without destroying the freedom that makes this medium great. In fact, the only reason we’re here today is that while ordered by a federal court to create rules to govern political activity on the internet — the regulators at the Federal Election Commission have been unable to do so.

The reform community stands terrified of an unregulated internet. Surely they fear that mighty corporations or well-heeled donors will simply use this new outlet — let’s call it a “loophole” to pour vast sums of money into our politics to distort and harm our democracy. During a hearing this summer at the Federal Election Commission, we heard of the horrors of the “Haliblogger” and what sort of damage he could do combining a blog and corporate power.

They will talk about “expensive video productions” and “animated emails” and wonder how the little guy could ever compete.

Members of the Committee, the problem with this analysis is that it is simply not rooted in fact — and those raising this problem just don’t understand the internet."

Read the rest of the testimony. We will post the transcript when it comes available.

Posted by Jennifer Lowe, 02:38:13 PM



House Admin Hearing Today on Regulation of Political Speech
The Committee on House Administration, led by Chairman Bob Ney, will hold a hearing entitled, “Political Speech on the Internet: Should it be Regulated?” at 9 a.m. on Thursday, September 22, 2005, in the Committee’s Hearing Room, 1310 Longworth House Office Building.

The hearing will focus on whether the Federal Election Commission (FEC) should regulate political speech on the Internet and examine the different options currently being considered in Congress and at the FEC to regulate or deregulate political speech on the Internet and the potential effects of these options. Currently, H.R. 1316, the Pence-Wynn 527 Fairness Act, is the only bill in the House being considered that would amend FECA to exclude Internet communications from being considered “public communications,” thus exempting web sites, blogs, and online advertisements from regulation under the federal campaign finance laws.

Posted by Jennifer Lowe, 08:47:05 AM