Blogger Protection Proposed

The Center for Competitive Politics Blog notes that the Blogger Protection Act of 2008 was introduced. 

The proposed legislation, introduced today, guarantees blogs the same protections granted to other forms of media under federal campaign finance laws. “Bloggers deserve to have their First Amendment rights secured in statute,” said Bradley A. Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics. “Blogs have transformed the political process and made communication among citizens exponentially easier.”   

The legislation also protects bloggers from ever being considered to have made a contribution or expenditure on behalf of, or in opposition to, a candidate by simply linking to campaign websites or writing about the positions of federal candidates.   

This legislation could not have come at a more important time.  As a recent Washington Post story put it,

This interactive medium is rebooting the first three words of the 220-year-old U.S. Constitution for the 21st century.

Online, “We the people . . . ” takes on a whole new meaning.

527 v. 501(c)(4) v. ?

The Campaign Finance Institute released its analysis of recent 527 and 501(c)(4) activity.  It’s a must-read, including the conclusion (although the groups themselves might not put it in these terms):

While soft money groups do not spend nationally on the scale of parties and candidates, they may spend enough on key races to help turn the balance in federal elections. In 2008, we are seeing strong early fundraising, changing practices among the 527s and the continued rise of a newer kind of 501(c)(4) actor. Some of these developments stem from earlier political controversies over 527s and the resulting regulatory response. Whatever perspective one takes on the rise of soft money groups in national elections, one thing is clear: it cannot help one’s understanding to look at each soft money group and its donors in isolation from others and from “hard money” groups and donors. They are, for better or worse, all part of a single campaign finance system.

LDA Enforcement

Going to the Mat (thanks for my first-ever link!) references my earlier post regarding LDA/HLOGA enforcement and asks if the severe punishments provided for in HLOGA will ever be enforced.   (HLOGA contains increased civil penalties and new criminal penalties — prison and fines.)    A couple of points on enforcement.  HLOGA’s “knowing and corrupt” (Sec. 7(b)) standard is part of a prosecutor’s burden in criminal cases.  The LDA (Sec. 6(a)) further provides that the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House shall

… 

(7) notify any lobbyist or lobbying firm in writing that may be in noncompliance with this Act;

(8) notify the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia that a lobbyist or lobbying firm may be in noncompliance with this Act, if the registrant has been notified in writing and has failed to provide an appropriate response within 60 days after notice was given under paragraph (7).

Obviously, there are significant non-legal considerations in weighing the prospect of enforcement.