Comments on: Response to the FEC http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/06/response_to_the.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:39:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Matt http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/06/response_to_the.html/comment-page-1#comment-1264 Matt Fri, 03 Jun 2005 08:53:43 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/06/response_to_the.html#comment-1264 <p>I'd even limit the proviso. "Full disclosure of all sources of funds" should apply to _candidates for elective office_ ONLY. People who argue about whether the campaign finance laws should apply to bloggers have been tricked into watching the birdie. The meaningful question is why campaign finance laws apply to ANYONE whose name does not appear on a ballot.</p> <p>As much as restrictions on _actual_ campaign finance procedure tend to benefit Republicrats at the expense of third party and independent candidates, I still see much less of a problem with setting a legally higher bar for those persons actually running in elections, than with doing so for all political speech.</p> <p>I'm not part of the "1st Amendment doesn't apply to certain kinds of speech" crowd, but it is plainly obvious to anyone with any understanding whatsoever of American history that freedom of speech in this country was intended _originally_ and _primarily_ to protect political speech. The founders must be spinning in their graves that we haven't yet killed off McCain-Feingold.</p> I’d even limit the proviso. “Full disclosure of all sources of funds” should apply to _candidates for elective office_ ONLY. People who argue about whether the campaign finance laws should apply to bloggers have been tricked into watching the birdie. The meaningful question is why campaign finance laws apply to ANYONE whose name does not appear on a ballot.

As much as restrictions on _actual_ campaign finance procedure tend to benefit Republicrats at the expense of third party and independent candidates, I still see much less of a problem with setting a legally higher bar for those persons actually running in elections, than with doing so for all political speech.

I’m not part of the “1st Amendment doesn’t apply to certain kinds of speech” crowd, but it is plainly obvious to anyone with any understanding whatsoever of American history that freedom of speech in this country was intended _originally_ and _primarily_ to protect political speech. The founders must be spinning in their graves that we haven’t yet killed off McCain-Feingold.

]]>