The Aberdeen News has an AP report by Dennis Gale on yesterday’s House vote on the Online Freedom of Speech Act. Here is the introduction:
Rep. Stephanie Herseth split from most of her fellow Democrats Wednesday when she voted for a bill that would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from Federal Election Commission regulation.
The bill, entitled the Online Freedom of Speech Act, attracted 225 votes in the House. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.
Herseth and 45 other Democrats joined 179 Republicans supporting the measure. Among the "no" votes were 143 Democrats, 38 Republicans and one independent.
Here is a quote from Herseth:
Herseth said, "We've seen a lot of activity on the Internet that I think has actually been good for the public discourse and question the FEC's ability to regulate that in an effective way and not stifle the type of discourse and the type of activity that allows candidates who don't have access to large major donors or the interest groups that are so much a part of modern-day campaigning to be more active as candidates or political participants."
Later, some kind of legislation might be needed regulating that activity, "particularly as it relates to campaign financing," she said.
Here is what Gale included from an interview I had with him earlier today:
Steve Sibson of Mitchell, who writes the conservative blog "Sibby Online," said those intent on getting around any FEC rules would find a way to do so.
"All it does is restrict the good guys, and the bad guys still find ways to be bad guys," he said in an interview.
Sibson said the FEC is trying to tell bloggers that it doesn't want to restrict their speech but rather whether they're affiliated with or paid by political forces.
"What we want is to be treated the same as the media," he said. "We want the same media exemptions that they enjoy."
Bloggers don't get paid for what they do, said Sibson, an accountant. But it would be nobody's business if somebody were paying him, he said.
"But if somebody does want to pay us and compensate us for our efforts, and then all of a sudden we have to comply with a bunch of rules. ... That I'm starting to have a problem with."
Gale ended with what the pissed off the South Dakota Democrats:
Jon Lauck, who was a South Dakota State University history professor, received $27,000 as a research consultant from John Thune's campaign when the Republican was looking to oust Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle.
Lauck's "Daschle v. Thune" blog scrutinized Daschle and his voting record throughout the campaign.
Lauck has said many people knew he was a paid consultant to Thune's campaign, but he didn't believe he had to post any "flashing banner" on his site.
Steve Hildebrand has made a big deal about "Thune’s paid bloggers". It is because of their outrage that we bloggers are receiving attention from the FEC. Now that he is paying bloggers himself, they try to get around the issue by claiming Hildebrand is not paying the bloggers to blog, but only paying them to be consultants. They wouldn’t allow that argument from Thune and Lauck, so why are they making it themselves? This is just another example of how the Democrats want rules to restrict conservatives, but they refuse to have them be applied to themselves. Often times, such as in regard to the issue of paid bloggers, they get by with lies and denials. As I said in the above report:
"All it does is restrict the good guys, and the bad guys still find ways to be bad guys,"
I also said that it is nobodies business who pays bloggers. But I do like making the Democrats taste their own medicine. It tends to make their partisans like Chad Schuldt gage all over their keyboards.
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds has reactions.
Here is more from RedState.org.
