release

On September 22, 2005, Mike Krempasky testified before Congress on one of the pillars of our way of life: freedom of this nation’s citizens to speak freely to and about their government.

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.

Under the current campaign finance reform regime, the big media outlets - the New York Times, CBS, Time Warner, Fox News, and all the rest - are free to broadcast what they will without government interference. They can -and do, in the case of most newspapers - endorse candidates, support or oppose initiatives and legislative proposals, and engage in all of those other things that the rest of us consider our God-given right to talk about our government. A single person, publishing their political opinions on the web and endorsing candidates and legislative positions, enjoys that same privilege. Excuse, me, that same right.

Until now.

As a result of recent court cases involving campaign finance reform laws, the FEC is considering imposing regulations on Internet speech. What would be the effect of those regulations? Listen to Mike again:

Regulations that would create legal obstacles, burdens, thresholds and loophols for every individual blogger would generate a minefield that only the wealthy or the lawyers could navigate.

Take a look at how the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act plays out today – just about every political campaign in the country has its own lawyer. And consider those millions of bloggers – do we really want to create that many new prospects for our nation’s legal industry?

Even worse - if individual bloggers must pass a governmental test every time they discuss their feelings on political issues, the reaction will be completely predictable: rather than deal with the red tape of regulation and the risk of legal problems, they will fall silent on all issues of politics.

If the FEC does what it seems poised to do, every blogger with a political opinion will have to check with a lawyer before hitting the “publish” button, just to make sure they’re not running afoul of the law. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t have to do that. Al Franken doesn’t have to do that. Michael Moore and the New York Times don’t have to do that.

I might have to that. And I am a lawyer. But I know relatively little about campaign finance regulations.

Fortunately, there is a move in Congress to protect our constitutional rights - giving the little guy the same speech protections enjoyed by the well-funded big media guys. H.R. 1606, sponsored by Congressman Jim Hensarling, enjoys support from over half the House, but more important, it enjoys support from webloggers on the left and the right. It would effectively remove the FEC from any regulation of Internet communications - which is exactly the way it should be.

Contact your congressional representative now - 202-225-3121 - and tell them you want them to support H.R. 1606. If you don’t know who your rep is go to the House web site and punch in your zip code.

If H.R. 1606 becomes law, then no blogger will ever have to have a lawyer on staff just to express a political opinion - and that’s exactly the way our founding fathers intended it.