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.