Why did House Democrats vote to restrict free speech on the Internet?

Question

A bill came before the House today, HR 1606, known as the Online Freedom of Speech Act. The main idea was that online communications (such as blogs, web sites, etc) were not considered “communications” according to the rules governing the FEC. Thus, it would ensure that those of us who discuss political matters online wouldn’t run afoul of the FEC. Of course, I’ve taken the Patterico Pledge, so even if the FEC tries to regulate my conduct I’ll be more than happy to tell them exactly where they can go. It is a truly non-partisan bill, as it was introduced by Rep Hensarling (R-TX) in the House, and an identical bill (S. 678) was introduced in the Senate by Harry Reid (D-NV).

The measure was to be passed under suspension, which means that it requires a 2/3 vote in the affirmative to pass, not the typical simple majority. This is typically done with non-controversial measures expected to pass easily, and thus measures are passed with limited debate and without any amendments added during the debate process. In fact, the two other measures voted on under suspension today were passed by votes of 407-0 and 408-0.

HR 1606 failed by a vote of 225-182, about 55%, well short of the required two-thirds. That link has the vote tallies, so I’d suggest taking a look. If you’re a blogger and your Representative voted against this measure, you just might want to give him a call. In fact, that’s grounds to use all your bloggy powers to get his butt tossed out of office come mid-term election time. Thankfully, my Rep, Tom Price, voted yea on this one.

Republicans voted in the affirmative 179-38, and Democrats voted against by a 143-46 margin. Now, I just wonder why Democrats vote so overwhelmingly against online freedom of speech? Can someone help me out on this? This seems like a pretty strange thing to oppose. After all, the things I read on DailyKos and DU are dangerously close to being obscene, and Democrats are always willing to defend obscenity on any level. Could it be that they’re trying to limit a medium they’re destined to lose? I’m quite sure that’s why they hate talk radio. The internet is like talk radio for the masses. I mean, are they so afraid of competing in the realm of ideas and the written word that they dare not let us plebes speak out?

Lil,

Do you really believe that garbage of an exuse,,, if so you are definately drinking too much kool-aid

Nice excuses for prohiting free speech guys.. are you serious.


, all of this activity is actually under attack today. When Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act in 2002, the law apparently was unclear on what impact it would have on political speech on the Internet. The Federal Election Commission interpreted the law to say that Congress did not intend to regulate the Internet when it passed BCRA. The bill's sponsors disagreed, and they sued the FEC in the courts.
A recent appellate court decision will force the FEC to implement a rule that would cover Internet communications. If the Congress does not act now and make it clear that it does not want the Internet to be regulated, the FEC will adopt a new rule to regulate the Internet; and by passing H.R. 1606, also known as the Online Freedom of Speech Act, Congress can prevent this from happening.

Answer 1

Thanks for the heads up Dina, this one slipped by under the radar.

You have to understand one thing about the Socialist Democrats, they get to define the meaning of the words, so by their definition this is not about Freedom of Speech it is about something else. If you cannot win on values, change the discussion and definition so you can win. These people really are despicable.

It is a daily onslaught on the Constitution, our God given rights and our liberty.

Answer 2

Wow what an unpartisan question from somebody with no political agenda, lol. Yes Im sure you found the only unbiased source. Congratulations on being perfect. All the dems are pot smoking flag haters who dreamed up global warming to steal money out of poor oil companies pockets. And all republicans poop gold and there farts never smell. Oh and read the statements of the people who agree with you, hmmm. Namecalling (and probably some from the left too). Has it ever occured to you asking questions that are really statements widens the divide and does not solve anything. Is this really a question or a statement. No need to respond I won't be back. Just think about it yourself. If I ask why do the yankees suck, do I want an answer, probably not.

Answer 3

As I look online, there's reasons as to why they don't support this bill. It isn't black and white.

"The blanket Internet exemption in the Hensarling bill, however, is not simply about protecting the rights of bloggers, but rather would open huge loopholes in the campaign finance laws to allow members of Congress and political parties to return corrupting, unlimited soft money to federal campaigns.

The last thing the House should be doing is passing legislation that would again allow Members to use influence-buying soft money to finance their campaigns. That, however, is precisely what the Hensarling bill would allow.

For example, under H.R. 1606, a Washington lobbyist such as Jack Abramoff could provide an unlimited amount of corrupt soft money for a member of Congress to use in buying campaign ads run on the Internet. "

Looks like they're concerned about political corruption opportunities.

Answer 4

Do you have any idea what you are talking about.

This is the second time this bill was defeated and its sole purpose was "To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication"

Politicians wanted their Internet speech to be eliminated from scrutiny from the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Maybe you should start by reading that. Of course they don't want to be held accountable. You find that news?

Answer 5

I commend your party on its unerring ability to present a pig wearing lipstick as a beauty contestant.

The bill is about SOFT MONEY not "free speech." Nice try.
********************

"The debate today is about what is the best way to approach coordinated expenditures that are campaign-related on the Internet. We all understand that the Internet is a wonderful tool for political activity. Its accessibility and generally low cost are invigorating to the body politic. I belong to moveon.org. I read my e-mails every time they are up. But, by the same token, its increased usage by candidates and parties and the increased resources being put into this technology for campaign advertising suggest that we need to be cautious about attempts to exempt all Internet activity from Federal campaign finance laws.

Let me say a couple of words about bloggers, because bloggers have generated and received a lot of attention here. No one wants to regulate bloggers, not the campaign finance reformers, not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not the Federal Election Commission. That is clear. The question is whether to exempt individual speech, as I have proposed, or create blanket exemptions for entities as varied as labor unions and major corporations who make soft money contributions at the behest of candidates, on behalf of candidates, and at the direction of candidates."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-h20051102-19&bill=h109-1606#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fmh20051102-19.xmlElementm10m0m0m

Answer 6

They didn't.

See, THIS is why it is so DANGEROUS for you guys to only listen to your hate programs. They feed you MISINFORMATION and you don't question it or try to understand it.

It isn't about FREE SPEECH. It's about corporations and special interests being able to hide contributions. It's about finance reform. It's about SOFT MONEY.

You people are SO gullible. Say "free speech" and you wet your pants. Say "terrorist" and you crap your pants. I actually feel sorry for you, except that your ignorance and hate is dangerous for this country.
***********************

"The issue here is not individual speech. The issue is corrupting soft money. The primary constitutional basis for campaign finance regulation is preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption of candidates or officeholders. Creating a new way for Members of Congress or the Cabinet to solicit and then coordinate or control unlimited amounts of soft money is precisely the scenario campaign finance reform banned."

Answer 7

There were other "poison pills" in the legislation that they could not support. It's typical in washington for them to tack on riders to bills that change it totally.

Answer 8

The government knows we are watching THEM now.

NO more slipping laws and legislation through.

Americans have been empowered.

Use your voice.

Answer 9

Because this is the #1 place for the truth to be told and They don't want that to happen!