Following up on our post
of Tuesday, a month ago, yet another organization, Foundation for a Secure
and Prosperous America, posted videos on YouTube. The three Democrat Commissioners voted against applying
the Internet exemption to dismiss the case. This is the second time in
two years the Commission split 3-3 over YouTube videos posted for free.
The Republican Commissioners' Statement on the case can be found here.
Both times, Commissioner
I-Don't-Apply-The-First-Amendment Ann Ravel issued statements explaining that
she voted to countermand existing law because she -- get this -- needs
additional information about technology and politics before she can vote to
enforce well-established law. Well, Commissioner Ravel has been on the
FEC for three years. She's had three years to get the necessary
information. But her votes to countermand the 2006 Internet exemption
aren't about more information -- Commissioner Ravel tried to regulate bloggers
as head of the California Fair Political Practices Commission and she's still
trying to regulate free speech on the Internet at the FEC. Her
obfuscating Statement can be read here.
Of course, a few months
ago, Ravel, Weintraub and Walther needed NO additional information about
technology in politics in order to apply the Internet exemption and vote to
dismiss a complaint against Obama for America. So the 2006 Internet exemption
remains good law when it's convenient. The Commission's Factual &
Legal Analysis dismissing the Obama campaign under the 2006 Internet exemption
is located here.
So much for consistent
treatment of all Americans under the rule of law as duly adopted and written.
No comments:
Post a Comment