I have only had a chance to skim these comments. From the headline of the press release I just received, “Watchdog Groups Urge FEC to Exclude Bloggers from Internet Regulation; Say Soft Money Ban Should Apply to Online Activity by State Parties,” I thought these groups were going to take a completely hands-off approach to the regulation of blogging. From my skim, that does not appear to be the case. Instead the groups appear to advocate the following:
1. Individual bloggers (that is, bloggers who are neither incorporated nor part of a labor union) would be exempt from most FEC rules, though there would have to be disclaimers on paid advertisements.
2. Blogs (and I presume other websites) paid for by corporations or unions would have to stick with normal rules for corporations and unions unless some other exception applied. This means, for example, that a corporate owned blog could not expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office unless another exception applied.
3. Such corporate-owned blogs could not automatically take advantage of the press exemption, but it would instead be on a case-by-case basis. Slate and Salon should get the exemption, but a blogger who solicits money for a campaign likely does not, because “[t]hese are not characteristics associated with the media in the off-line context.” (Page 18)
4. The groups suggest the FEC consider if it has the power to exempt certain corporate owned blogs whose primary purpose is blogging (as opposed to, say, selling cars). See page 13: “We recognize the need to ensure that individuals who act as bloggers but incorporate for liability purposes are not thereby made subject to the panoply of campaign finance restrictions that apply to corporations. By analogy to so-called ‘MCFL corporations,’ see 11 C.F.R. 5 1 14.10, the Commission should consider whether it has authority to define an exempt category of ‘blogger corporation’ as an incorporated entity whose principal purpose is to conduct blogging activities. Such corporations could be treated as individuals for purposes of the campaign finance rules applicable to Internet activity. This would treat incorporated bloggers as individuals for purposes of the definition of ‘public communication’ (a definition which should
otherwise be made generally applicable to corporations), as well as allow incorporated bloggers to take advantage of the exemptions from the basic definitions of ‘contribution’ and ‘expenditure’ for Internet activities by individuals, proposed in the NPRM and discussed below.”
5. The groups appear to agree with the proposed rulemaking that individuals should be prohibited from blogging on their own time about campaigns for more than a limited time on corporate or union owned computers (e.g., someone who blogs from work, but not as part of the work activity).
6. The groups do not appear to advocate that bloggers who are paid to blog by a campaign disclose that fact on their website.
This is all based on a quick read, and if I’ve made some mistakes in interpreting the groups’ views, I’ll post an update here. Also, I have enabled comments.