Donald Just Lost The Election

[adaher]

@Evil_Economist

By “harder to prove” do you mean “there is no proof”?

Democrats on the FEC have been floating internet regulation for years and always having to pull back when the inevitable backlash comes. It’s time for the next Democratic president to do the responsible thing and only appoint commissioners who pledge to leave the internet alone.

[elucidator]

@adaher

…It’s time for the next Democratic president to do the responsible thing…

Is that a French Battle Flag I see you waving?

[adaher]

We’ll see a Democratic President soon, whether it’s this year or four years from now. Even if Trump pulls this one out I can’t see him being a two termer, or a Republican successor successfully campaigning on his legacy.

[Evil_Economist]

@adaher

Democrats on the FEC have been floating internet regulation for years and always having to pull back when the inevitable backlash comes. It’s time for the next Democratic president to do the responsible thing and only appoint commissioners who pledge to leave the internet alone.

OK, so you say, but in general if someone says “cite?” they don’t mean repeat yourself. They mean, as I do in this case: Please provide a reputable source.

And if by “regulate internet” you mean “apply campaign finance laws to internet spending,” well…

[JKellyMap]

@adaher

We’ll see a Democratic President soon, whether it’s this year or four years from now. Even if Trump pulls this one out I can’t see him being a two termer, or a Republican successor successfully campaigning on his legacy.

The way things are going, we might elect neither a Republican nor a Democrat in 2020. Should we go with Bull Moose, or Whig? I kinda like the Moose.

[adaher]

@Evil_Economist

OK, so you say, but in general if someone says “cite?” they don’t mean repeat yourself. They mean, as I do in this case: Please provide a reputable source.

And if by “regulate internet” you mean “apply campaign finance laws to internet spending,” well…

Fox News is credible as far as reporting facts, as in there was in fact a 3-3 vote on a particular case. Fox has an editorial slant, but if they just made up a story like that out of whole cloth it would end them as an organization.

[elucidator]

I can’t…I don’t even…what the?..where in the hell did you get…

Too many for me, I fold.

[Czarcasm]

@adaher

Fox News is credible as far as reporting facts, as in there was in fact a 3-3 vote on a particular case. Fox has an editorial slant, but if they just made up a story like that out of whole cloth it would end them as an organization.

You didn’t link to a news article-You linked to an editorial.

[adaher]

It was youtube videos. They didn’t want to dismiss the case. It’s political advertising on the internet, which is supposed to be a regulation free space. It wasn’t a hard vote and it should have been unanimous.

The FEC Office of the General Counsel concluded the case should be dismissed, as the ads didn’t contain express advocacy (such as “vote for candidate X”). The counsel also noted the YouTube videos are exempt from disclosure under a pivotal 2006 FEC rule known as the Internet exemption, which says “an uncompensated individual or group … may engage in Internet activities for the purpose of influencing a federal election without restriction.”

All FEC commissioners agreed the case should be dismissed based on the express advocacy point. But, in a significant disagreement, the commission split 3-3 along partisan lines on the question of whether YouTube videos indeed are exempt under the 2006 Internet rule.

Hmmm, last I checked, Youtube was on the internet. And Democrats say Republicans don’t understand tech.

[PastTense]

Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents.

Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Trump’s charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing” — which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

But surely there is no worthier recipient of charitable expenditures than Donald Trump?

[adaher]

@Czarcasm

You didn’t link to a news article-You linked to an editorial.

There is nothing wrong with editorials breaking news stories of interest only to the writer. If the facts are wrong(was the vote 4-2? Did the vote never happen?) then he wouldn’t last long as an editorial writer.

And it’s not the first time Fox has reported Democrats on the FEC floating internet regulation:

FEC backs off flirtation with regulating Internet

If this is a dirty lie meant to smear Democrats, it shouldn’t be hard for Democrats to push back on it. Fox is quoting people and using records of votes. If they are misreporting then it should be easy to prove.

[TheStake]

I don’t know about the ads that are being referenced, but I see pro Hillary ads on youtube daily. In the form of shaming trump. I didn’t know that was against any laws though.

[adaher]

That’s because the FEC can’t regulate the internet as long as Republicans keep on voting as a bloc against it. And the public stays vigilant. I personally, am seeing that Joe Biden ad constantly, on Hulu and Youtube and that’s absolutely fine.

[octopus]

@Evil_Economist

OK, so you say, but in general if someone says “cite?” they don’t mean repeat yourself. They mean, as I do in this case: Please provide a reputable source.

And if by “regulate internet” you mean “apply campaign finance laws to internet spending,” well…

Yeah, let’s let the state control the press. That always ends well.

[Czarcasm]

@octopus

Yeah, let’s let the state control the press. That always ends well.

So now you’re against Trump?

[CarnalK]

If you are buying ad space on youtube I don’t get the argument that it should be exempt because internet. From the earlier FoxNews link:

The FEC Office of the General Counsel concluded the case should be dismissed, as the ads didn’t contain express advocacy (such as “vote for candidate X”). The counsel also noted the YouTube videos are exempt from disclosure under a pivotal 2006 FEC rule known as the Internet exemption, which says “an uncompensated individual or group … may engage in Internet activities for the purpose of influencing a federal election without restriction.”

All FEC commissioners agreed the case should be dismissed based on the express advocacy point. But, in a significant disagreement, the commission split 3-3 along partisan lines on the question of whether YouTube videos indeed are exempt under the 2006 Internet rule.

But in the Q&A in the 2006 FEC rule it says:

Are the rules different if I pay to place an ad on someone else’s web site?

Yes. Internet communications placed on another person’s web site for a fee are considered “general public political advertising,” and are thus “public communications” under the law. 11 CFR 100.26. As such, State, district and local party committees, and State and local candidates, must use federally-permissible funds to pay for them if the communications promote, support, attack, or oppose a candidate for Federal office.

So the Dems agreed in that case it was not express advocacy but disagreed (seemingly obviously correct to me) that merely being on youtube doesn’t give automatic exemption. What am I missing?

[octopus]

@Czarcasm

So now you’re against Trump?

I’m not for restricting the 1st amendment. Who’s more likely to appoint conservative justices?

[Evil_Economist]

@CarnalK

So the Dems agreed in that case it was not express advocacy but disagreed (seemingly obviously correct to me) that merely being on youtube doesn’t give automatic exemption. What am I missing?

You’re not missing anything.

[iiandyiiii]

@octopus

I’m not for restricting the 1st amendment. Who’s more likely to appoint conservative justices?

Conservative justices like Scalia can find exceptions to the 1st amendment just as well (and maybe better) as other justices can.

[CarnalK]

I guess what I might be missing is if the group actually paid youtube or if the problem was just the ad’s production costs.