The FCC mandate comes from the fact that there is only so much electromagnetic spectrum, there is only so much that is usable for a specific application, and that for private companies to use a public resource we the people (through our elected government) are allowed to make that use conditional. Note that the FCC has never had any say over the content of non-broadcast TV such as cable channels. The owners of the channels (and in effect the advertisers willing to pay for ads) are the ones who dictate content restrictions.
Now, the FCC should probably have a role to play when it comes to the technical aspects of the Internet but not the content, other than to enforce Net Neutrality. And again, that’s purely technical in treating all packets the same.
However, the FEC is not charged with the communications of the ad content but with the actual content itself as regards campaign finance law. While limitations on political speech should be held to a higher standard than limits on commercial speech, do we really want to say that various agencies can’t take action purely because content is on the Internet? For instance, the SEC should be able to take action against securities fraud or the FDA against illegal claims (for example, someone selling essential oils as a cure for Ebola) even if the speech was on the Internet.
Just because a new form of communication comes along doesn’t mean it should be immune from the safeguards we’ve already seen fit to impose on other means.
When air travel first became possible at some point the government had to say “Yeah, you need to show a passport to enter the country via airplane just like you would if you got here on a boat.”
The internet as we know it didn’t exist 30 years ago and people managed to communicate. The mechanism of communication doesn’t exempt the users from oversight any more than the method of travel should exempt people from immigration law.
Is that a problem? Would it also be a problem if the person had attached their name to their donation?
If it is a problem, and it’d also be a problem if the person attached their name to the donation, then the problem is obviously with the politically-motivated firing, and that’s where we should address the solution: make it illegal to fire someone for such a reason.
There’s a clear public good associated with transparency in political donations. The “but somebody’s gonna get fired!” spiel is a canard.
This is already done here in Minnesota.
Not regulation of the content or your freedom of expression, but if you post an online video supporting a political candidate, you are required to include a disclaimer identifying who posted this, and if it was done in coordination with the candidate. Also, if your video post or your blog ad supporting this candidate has a value of more than $20, it has to be reported as an in-kind donation to that candidate.
All campaign or party unit Treasurers got an email this summer explaining these rules, and that they apply to online resources just as they do to printed material, TV ads, etc.
So no limit on your freedom to express your opinion on a political candidate – you just can’t do it secretly.
That’s a very good argument but exactly why should the FCC be able to regulate the internet but not the cable channels and why should the FCC be able to regulate the content of TV and radio(non-satellite) broadcasts but not that of the internet.
The FCC has already shown it’s quite capable of making that distinction.
You want porn? The FCC doesn’t prevent it. Never has.
Porn and all sorts of dissenting literature were freely available before the internet. Why do you somehow believe that this new method of communication is sacrosanct?
People have been distributing free ideas since before Gutenberg invented the press and Martin Luther nailed his theses to church doors.
As I said, the FCC should be able to regulate the internet and cable from a purely technical perspective, not a content perspective. And it pretty much has to be the FCC because I don’t think we have another agency that could really do so.
Also as I said, the distinction has always been that if you are using a public resource–in this case the EM spectrum–you can (and should) be subject to regulations imposed by the public. Broadcast TV and radio is completely free (all you have to do is stick up an antenna capable of receiving a specific wavelength) and the use of those wavelengths by broadcasting make them impossible for anyone else to use for other purposes. So we’ve decided that there should be a number of requirements and limitations on broadcasters and material broadcast.
Cable (and satellite, but the argument is even better for cable) does not use the public frequencies. Thus, any content that is distributed purely by cable (so not like one of the old superstations like TBS or WGN) is not subject to FCC regulation. All censorship on such a channel is purely self-imposed or is effectively imposed by a non-governmental party such as an advertisers. Similarly, there is no content restriction by the FCC on satellite radio. Any censorship on a particular channel on SiriusXM (playing the edited version of a song, for example) comes from SiriusXM making some channels family-friendly as part of their marketing.
the funny thing is.….liberalism is by definition “distrust of govt”. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. that what liberalism used to be. it is just funny how liberals now believe that the govt is the solution and not the problem. complete opposite of what they used to be.
Frankly I don’t believe that for a single second.
If you were to post your name and address and I told your neighbors horrendous lies about you I don’t believe for one second you would be OK with that.
I don’t see a problem with mandating that Internet political ads must be identified as to who’s paying for them, just like for TV and radio. That way we’ll know that it’s Americans For Fuzzy Puppies denouncing a particular candidate and not Alliance For A Better Tomorrow.
And for the record (there must be a record around here somewhere) the idea of forcing such groups to publish lists of everyone who ever contributed to them strikes me in general as a slimy attempt to restrict political activity. On the other hand, knowing who the executive officers are seems more justifiable.
There doesn’t even appear to be unanimity that the FEC isn’t the IRS.
Just to be clear, you support the Citizens United ruling that allows Super PACs to conduct political activity while raising tens of millions of dollars in donations from donors whose names will never be disclosed to the public?
TJ was a lot of things–some of which repel modern liberals. And were even out of step with some people in his own day. Washington’s will freed his slaves & provided the young ones with an education to help them support themselves. TJ made some ringing denunciations of slavery early in his career but didn’t free anybody whose last name was not Hemings. His plan for eventual emancipation (that never happened) involved shipping all the former slaves far, far away–to Keep America White.
TJ’s only public project after his Presidency was founding the University of Virginia. Due to his principles, it had no religious affiliation. But he ensured that the political science (or whatever they called it) curriculum would teach Strict Construction of the Constitution & States Rights. So the young men of Virginia could avoid going off to Harvard & picking up un-Southern ideas. (Of course, he’d ignored that Strict Construction thing when he made the Louisiana Purchase.)
What about the Examiner’s partisan bias that Ravel only wants to “regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website”? Is there any evidence that she want to regulate only Democrats? Does this bias bother you also?