Other Columns by Paul M. Weyrich
Paul M. Weyrich Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Page 2 of 2

The supposed purpose of McCain-Feingold was to empower ordinary citizens, the "little guy." In fact, like him or dislike him, Howard Dean changed the face of politics by campaigning through his website. Thousands of dollars were contributed to Dean by virtue of that website. He had empowered the little guy. For a time it looked as if he might go the distance. The original Dean effort made a difference and now no major campaign for the presidency, the Senate or governor and in some cases even for the House of Representatives exists without the Internet to communicate on issues, to volunteer, to walk the precincts and, of course, to contribute by credit card.

This is fine. Perhaps McCain-Feingold actually achieved something. Not quite. Thanks to the Federal Election Commission, it appears that the regulators are going after campaign websites. They possibly want to regulate the bloggers who express an opinion about a candidate and his views. Having empowered ordinary citizens, the FEC, thanks to McCain-Feingold, now is preparing to regulate ordinary folks who comment about or who contribute to campaigns. This is insane. Returning to the late Senator Allen's point where is the reform objective? I believe that when ordinary folks have freedom in the political process the regulators want to stifle free speech and ordinary participation.

Congress needs to revisit this whole question. (I suppose as bloggers they will want to prevent my saying so). There was interest in the 108th Congress in both the House and the Senate to repeal provisions in McCain-Feingold that curtail free speech. Neither House did so. In this Congress Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) has introduced legislation which would remedy part of the problem. No senator has stepped up to the plate but it is early enough in this Congress for that to happen. The leadership needs to twist some arms to see that the appropriate legislation is crafted and passed.

The Internet should be regarded as an electronic newspaper. It is clear that regulators cannot interfere with newspapers and magazines. Why then the Internet? Because like radio it uses a certain amount of bandwidth? That outdated concept has no longer any place in our political system. It is based on the outmoded idea that the public owns the airwaves so the Federal Communications Commission can regulate it. How is that relevant when half the nation now has cable and when satellites are growing fast as a means of programming transmission? The FCC asserts no jurisdiction over cable or satellites. It also should leave the Internet alone. Yes, bad things take place on the Internet just like bad things take place on cable and satellite television. Compared with the good that is done on the Internet in the political arena there is absolutely no excuse for regulation. The explosion of ideas and exchanges on the Internet is the best thing to happen to the political process since the early days of the Republic. Ordinary citizens are learning that they can have an impact on the system. Do we want to kill that initiative so regulators can claim more jurisdiction? Those of us who care about the political process on both sides of the spectrum and everyone in the middle had better start guarding the Internet the way the NRA guards the Second Amendment. The government will kill the Internet over my cold dead typing fingers.

-----------

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

>> Back -- Page 1 2