This is one of those efforts that leave me torn. In effect, the rulemaking process is considering whether the media exemption in campaing finance laws should be extended to bloggers. My point of view is that the media exemption should be extended to everyone. That, 1) limits to money spent are the equivalent to limits on speech and 2) it is particularly insidious to create multiple classes of citizen, where one class of citizen (exempt media) have more political speech rights than others.
So, while I agree with their comments on blogging narrowly, I disagree when they make broader statements, like this one:
Finally, your rules should be informed by the regulatory purpose of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Your rule should address corruption, the appearance of corruption, the involvement of foreign nationals, or the use of the corporate or labor forms of organization and their "aggregations of wealth" in ways that drown out the views of others.
What does that last part I bolded mean? Why is the Republican Party or one of George Soros's organizations proper aggregations of wealth for the political process but corporations and labor unions improper?
Anyway, campaign finance reform is one big hypocritical unconstitutional mess. Let anyone give whatever they want to whomever with the only proviso of full disclosure over the Internet of all sources of funds.