Are You A Political Blogger? You'd Better Get An Attorney.

IF YOU ONLY READ ONE POST ON ONE BLOG TODAY, IT SHOULD BE THIS ONE. AND YOU'D BETTER PAY ATTENTION.

Here's the scenario:

Let' s say you have a blog on the internet. You post once a day or once a week -- whenever you have time or you feel motivated. You like the Democratic party, let's say, so you've linked up to it on the blogroll. It's early, you're enjoying your morning cup of coffee in your bunny pajamas and thinking about composing a post.

There's a knock on the door and you answer. Two men in dark suits and ties stand at the threshold. They're from the federal government. And you're under arrest. Out come the handcuffs. You'll have to sit in the back seat of their plain blue Ford Crown Victoria. You're booked. Fingerprinted and photographed. Your bail is $125,000.

It's a bad dream; this can't happen! You live in America!

Think again, fellow blogger, think again.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Online political expression should not be exempt from campaign finance law, the House decided Wednesday as lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections.

"Online political expression?" Who, me? I'm just some little person sitting at my home posting on the web. Sure, I like the (Green, Republican, Libertarian, Democratic, Independent) party, who doesn't? Campaign finance law? H.R. 1606? What is all this?

The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.

From RedState.org:

Make no mistake - the Democrats killed The Online Freedom Of Speech Act last night. At the same time, we did get a majority in favor of the bill, but since it was brought under special rules - it needed 2/3rds to pass. Where do we go from here?Well - the first thing we need to do is pay close attention to the Republicans who voted against the bill. We need to do some more education. Let me say - some of these members may have voted against HR 1606 because of the procedure that brought it to the floor. Others may well have been swayed by the patently dishonest arguments from folks like Democracy21 and the Campaign Legal Center. Some may well have believed that HR 1606 was going to open the gates of soft money once again. That's not true. That's not true. That's not true.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Last night, the House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs, e-mail, and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.

The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.

Before the vote, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), the main sponsor of the legislation, said: "If bloggers are compelled to hire lawyers to navigate this complex, gray, murky world of federal regulation, many would simply cease to operate. That would only leave the wealthier participants in this blogosphere."

He warned that without his bill, bloggers could be fined for linking to campaign Web sites or forwarding candidates' news releases to e-mail lists.

Bradley Smith, one of the six commissioners sitting on the Federal Election Committee, says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over. He warns that bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

Licensing bloggers? You don't think that's coming?

"Okay, fine, waitaminnit ol' BZ," you say. "Take a big breath. Bring things down from 210/190. Take a large hit of CTFD. Think about it: what's the big deal about not being able to link to a campaign website. That's not so bad, is it? Certainly not! And forwarding some political hack's press release to others? Yeah, like you'll ever get that chance! What's the loss?"

Every loss! The crushing of our very US Constitution. Do the logical extension: the nature of any human being is to push and then push some more. So it is with government. I am all, and I mean ALL about free speech. I take the strictest constructionist view on the First Amendment. Free speech means just that. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have served or laid down their lives to protect that very concept. Why would any US citizen even remotely wish to consider the limiting of free speech? The internet is the very embodiment of same -- which is why relinquishing control of the internet to the United Nations scares me blue.

This wouldn't be just a Republican loss -- oh, no. It would be a Democratic loss, a Libertarian loss, a Green loss, a Tory loss, and a total abrogation of the First Amendment.

Hey, hold on a minute, will you? There's a knock on my door just now. . .