Democrats Reject Free Speech

If you've been following campaign finance reform at all (and you should), then you probably know that the courts ruled public communications to include the Internet. This means that any speech on the Internet endorsing or disparaging a candidate or political party in an election would be considered regulated campaign contributions. In other words, every blogger in America who posted opinions on an election should add the cost of the endorsement (computer, blogging service, bandwidth, etc.) and count that as a campaign contribution. Campaigns should also track these contributions to ensure they don't exceed any limits.

I'm against Campaign Finance Reform in general. Every time I see it, its invariably a proposal to limit speech somehow. When the courts determined that the most recent law applied to the Internet, it had the effect of legally regulating speech by individuals so far as to effectively prohibit it.

HR Bill 1606 was introduced to plug that gap. Specifically, it states:

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.

A very simple bill that shouldn't generate any opposition, right? Representative Hensarling (TX-5) didn't think so, and he brought the bill to a vote on a motion to suspend the rules. This is typically done for bills that are so noncontroversial that normal procedures are pointless; instead a vote is brought out immediately. To prevent abuse, bills brought forward under this motion require a two-thirds majority to pass. Clear so far?

The bill didn't pass. Click here for a XML breakout of who voted what, or here for some basic analysis include a colored map of the nation. The vote was roughly along party lines, with 82% of Republicans voting Aye, and 24% of Democrats doing the same. Totals were 225 Aye, 182 Nay, 26 Not Voting. While that's a majority, it didn't meet the higher requirements brought forth by suspending the rules.

Representative Martha Blackburn has some thoughts on why it didn't pass, and Matt Johnston has some more at his blog. But both missed the underlying reason -- the majority of the liberal left oppose free speech. Rather than allowing a free discourse of ideas, they believe that Americans should be feed a healthy mixture of approved ideas. Let the public be educated by the government; don't let the public experiment with the government.

Don't believe it? Just look to California, where Gov. Schwarzenegger has put Proposition 75 up for a referendum on November 8th. This law, if passed, would prohibit unions of public employees from spending dues on contributions to political parties and candidates. A quick trip to the liberal Alliance for a Better California will list many reasons why this bill is bad:

Supporters of Prop. 75 aren’t for workers rights. They’re using that argument as a smokescreen to push their real agenda. They’re against the minimum wage, against strengthening employee health care and against the eight-hour work day. And they support cuts to education, health care and oppose retirement security.

Nevermind that none of that is mentioned in the bill. The Alliance does post the real reason they oppose Proposition 75: "Prop. 75 is designed to reduce our ability to respond when politicians would harm education, health care and public safety, effectively clearing the opposition to the Governor’s education and health care cuts." It's not about education or health care cuts; those are scare tactics to motivate voters. It's the first phrase -- "Prop. 75 is designed to reduce our ability to respond..."

Yes, Proposition 75 forces the public to do the actual thinking and voting. Democrats prefer a system where the union forces the public to hand over cash in dues in order to keep their jobs. The union then distributes that money to political causes that it believes are right. What makes Proposition 75 such a good idea is that it specifically targets public employees. Did you realize that many state government employees, as a condition of employment, must pay union dues -- and then watch as the union passes that money directly to the Democratic party?

The good news? Polls show a majority of Californians oppose Porposition 75. And HR 1606 is not dead. Now that it failed to bypass the rules, it can still be considered as a conventional bill. This is a stumbling block, but a minor one. With a majority of representatives in favor, it stands a very good chance of passing. Improve that chance by writing your representative and senator today! Also, check out EFF's resources for bloggers, and blogging freedom.

Labels: free speech, personal freedoms

Permalink