-Caveat Lector-

http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n101399b.html



           Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.com:

           How a Small-Town Internet Speaker
     Tripped Over Campaign Finance Regulations

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
                                                Contact:
    Wednesday, October 13, 1999
                                                DC Media Relations Office


    WASHINGTON -- Deeply frustrated with congressional efforts to impeach
    President Clinton, Leo Smith last year decided to do more than complain.
    An experienced Internet user, he did what seemed easiest and most
    effective: he added a new section to his website to advocate the defeat of
    his representative and urged voters in his corner of Connecticut to elect
    Charlotte Koskoff in her stead.

    Days later, Koskoff's campaign manager contacted Smith -- not to thank
    him but to warn him of the possible legal problems he might face over the
    site. Smith soon learned he had entered the twilight zone of campaign
    finance regulations.

    After a series of conversations with the FEC, Smith was told, in essence,
    that he was in violation of federal law because he had spent more than
    $250 in expressing his political views without disclosing his identity and
    filing the required reports with the federal government.

    How did the FEC arrive at that $250 figure? Smith had already been
    operating a web site for his business; it cost him nothing but his time to
    add a section advocating Rep. Nancy Johnson's defeat.

    But that wasn't enough for the FEC. In an advisory opinion issued at
    Smith's request, the FEC said that it determines the value of web sites by
    counting, among other factors, the cost of the computer hardware and
    software used to create the site. If the computer cost more than $250, the
    FEC said, its owner would have to meet the filing and disclosure
    requirements of federal law. Using that logic, if the computer cost more
    than $1,000, its owner would have to register as a political action
    committee.

    "Forget about free speech," Smith told the American Civil Liberties Union
    in an interview, "if you can't advocate what you want for an election, that

    strikes at the heart of our democracy."

    Smith told the agency that he was not going to comply with its onerous
    regulations and refused to take down his website. Informed by an FEC
    attorney that he ran the risk of having legal action taken against him,
    Smith basically dared the agency to try.

    "I told them that I was definitely not going to take my site down, I was
not
    going to file the reports and I was not going to post my name on the site,"

    he said. "I told them that from a free speech standpoint, they were totally

    out of line."

    With the campaign finance issue returning to the Senate floor this week,
    the ACLU said that Leo Smith's encounter with the FEC and its Orwellian
    mindset goes to the core of what is at stake as Congress and the courts
    struggle with revising the nation's election laws.

    "Leo Smith's story proves our fundamental point: you cannot divide
    money and speech," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU's
    Washington National Office. "To argue otherwise, is to ignore reality."

    Smith's story encouraged Sens. Robert Bennett, R-UT, Slate Gorton, R-WA,
    and Mitch McConnell, R-KY, to offer an amendment that would exempt
    political speech on the Internet by individual citizens from regulation by
    the federal government.

    The ACLU said it enthusiastically supports the Bennett amendment and
    urges its adoption, but remains opposed to the main campaign finance
    proposal offered by Sens. John McCain, R-AZ, and Russ Feingold, D-WI.

    "The Internet allows anyone with a phone line, as the Supreme Court said,
    to become a 'town crier with a voice that resonates further than it could
    from any soapbox,'" Murphy said. "Congress must act to ensure that the
    FEC does not gag the new town criers."

    On the underlying bill, however, Murphy said that the "limit-driven
    approach represented by McCain-Feingold has proven to be a bogus
    reform."

    "Limits have not -- and cannot -- prevent corruption and they necessarily
    enhance inequality and therefore make elections more unfair. Moreover,
    they inevitably lead to curbs on speech that everyone agrees should be
    protected by the First Amendment," she added.

    Rather than continuing to focus on campaign finance proposals that are
    doomed to failure in the courts, the ACLU urged Congress to take
    seriously the idea of public financing for all federal elections.

    "Not withstanding the nay-sayers who pronounce public financing dead on
    arrival," Murphy said, "we remind Congress that our nation once had a
    system where private citizens and political parties printed their own
    ballots."

    It later became clear, Murphy explained, that to protect the integrity of
the
    electoral process, ballots had to be printed and paid for by the
    government. For the same reason, the public treasury pays for voting
    machines, polling booths and registrars.

    "We take it as a fundamental premise that elections are a public, not
    private, process," Murphy said. "If we are fed up with a system that some
    say allows too much private influence, then we must fix it by
    acknowledging that the government must fully finance elections."



                   Copyright 1999, The American Civil Liberties Union

--
-----------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
-----------------------

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to