Thursday, September 22, 2011
In the masthead for this blog i have "andy horning for congress". since it's been years since andy ran, i am sometimes asked why i still have this. it's deliberate civil disobedience, express advocacy on a website with no disclaimer.
i'll be updating it soon. andy has announced that he's running for the senate. i expect he'll get the libertarian nomination to run against lugar or whoever the GOP nominates.
update: Survivor's Rupert Boneham has announced for the LP nomination for governor, which has been well-received by the local party.
i'll be updating it soon. andy has announced that he's running for the senate. i expect he'll get the libertarian nomination to run against lugar or whoever the GOP nominates.
update: Survivor's Rupert Boneham has announced for the LP nomination for governor, which has been well-received by the local party.
About ten years ago the FEC put out a call for comments on internet rulemaking.
A then-record (now elipsed) 1000 people responded saying "Hands off the Internet!"
The FEC backed down and avoided heavily regulating, but now and then when they think we aren't looking they try to sneak something past us. It is that time again.
http://fec.gov/agenda/2011/mtgdoc_1158.pdf is a call for comments on the FEC maybe revising its disclaimer policies for websites and ads, again. Google and Facebook had asked for exemptions, pointing out that a short text link doesn't leave room for a disclaimer.
That, I think, is the context for this possible new rulemaking.
In Talley, McIntyre, ACLF, and Watchtower, the Supreme Court has stressed that disclaimer regulations are unconstitutional, and anonymous speech is protected.
The general First Amendment principle, from Tornillo v Miami Herald, Wooley v Maynard, etc., is that people rather than the government decide what they will say.
The FEC has been violating this civil right throughout its existence, and ignoring my submitted comments on the issue. I first submitted comments during the AO1998-22 Leo Smith controversy,and then was one of the 1000 commenters mentioned above,and have recently written then again a few months ago.
Citizens United threw a monkey-wrench into our understanding of when anonymous speech is protected. 8-1, the Court upheld disclaimers and disclosure for speech by corporations, speech which had previously been banned altogether. But they did not explain whether their decision was limited to corporate speech,or whether they were overruling Talley and McIntyre, or what. Three lower courts have split on what the effect of CU is. At some point this may go back up to the Supreme Court for clarification. Meanwhile rogue agencies like the FEC have some cover, and can claim qualified immunity when they act in actual bad faith. It remains an ethical violation,for those commissioners and staff who are lawyers, creating at least the appearance of impropriety. Whether the DC bar would take such a complaint seriously has yet to be tested.
What I hope to do with this post is call the internet's attention to the opportunity to comment to the FEC for their proposed rulemaking. I hope that a few of the people who ten years ago said "hands off the internet" will let the FEC know we are still here.
Comments may be submitted
20
electronically via the Commission's website at
21
http://www.fec.gov/fosers
Paper comments must be sent to the Federal Election
2
Commission, Attn.: Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel,
3
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463.
All comments must
4
include the full name and postal service address of a commenter,
and of each commenter if filed jointly, or they will not be
6
considered.
The Federal Election Commission requests comments on whether
8
to begin a rulemaking to revise its regulations at 11 CFR 110.11
9
concerning disclaimers on certain Internet communications and, if
10
so, what changes should be made to those rules.
A then-record (now elipsed) 1000 people responded saying "Hands off the Internet!"
The FEC backed down and avoided heavily regulating, but now and then when they think we aren't looking they try to sneak something past us. It is that time again.
http://fec.gov/agenda/2011/mtgdoc_1158.pdf is a call for comments on the FEC maybe revising its disclaimer policies for websites and ads, again. Google and Facebook had asked for exemptions, pointing out that a short text link doesn't leave room for a disclaimer.
That, I think, is the context for this possible new rulemaking.
In Talley, McIntyre, ACLF, and Watchtower, the Supreme Court has stressed that disclaimer regulations are unconstitutional, and anonymous speech is protected.
The general First Amendment principle, from Tornillo v Miami Herald, Wooley v Maynard, etc., is that people rather than the government decide what they will say.
The FEC has been violating this civil right throughout its existence, and ignoring my submitted comments on the issue. I first submitted comments during the AO1998-22 Leo Smith controversy,and then was one of the 1000 commenters mentioned above,and have recently written then again a few months ago.
Citizens United threw a monkey-wrench into our understanding of when anonymous speech is protected. 8-1, the Court upheld disclaimers and disclosure for speech by corporations, speech which had previously been banned altogether. But they did not explain whether their decision was limited to corporate speech,or whether they were overruling Talley and McIntyre, or what. Three lower courts have split on what the effect of CU is. At some point this may go back up to the Supreme Court for clarification. Meanwhile rogue agencies like the FEC have some cover, and can claim qualified immunity when they act in actual bad faith. It remains an ethical violation,for those commissioners and staff who are lawyers, creating at least the appearance of impropriety. Whether the DC bar would take such a complaint seriously has yet to be tested.
What I hope to do with this post is call the internet's attention to the opportunity to comment to the FEC for their proposed rulemaking. I hope that a few of the people who ten years ago said "hands off the internet" will let the FEC know we are still here.
Comments may be submitted
20
electronically via the Commission's website at
21
http://www.fec.gov/fosers
Paper comments must be sent to the Federal Election
2
Commission, Attn.: Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel,
3
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463.
All comments must
4
include the full name and postal service address of a commenter,
and of each commenter if filed jointly, or they will not be
6
considered.
The Federal Election Commission requests comments on whether
8
to begin a rulemaking to revise its regulations at 11 CFR 110.11
9
concerning disclaimers on certain Internet communications and, if
10
so, what changes should be made to those rules.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
adam liptak in the new york times has a column praising disclosure aspects of citizens united.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/disclosure-may-be-real-legacy-of-citizens-united-case.html?_r=2
i should get around to writing a rebuttal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/disclosure-may-be-real-legacy-of-citizens-united-case.html?_r=2
i should get around to writing a rebuttal.
Exciting Bopp case today from wisconsin, striking down a disclaimer statute (at least as applied.)
Hatchett v. BARLAND, Dist. Court, ED Wisconsin 2011,
references my Majors v Abell case 3 times, and intelligently discusses McIntrye in light of Citizens United. We now have a circuit split, on an issue that could easily return to the Supreme Court.
Hatchett v. BARLAND, Dist. Court, ED Wisconsin 2011,
references my Majors v Abell case 3 times, and intelligently discusses McIntrye in light of Citizens United. We now have a circuit split, on an issue that could easily return to the Supreme Court.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
LA wants ID to buy pens, pencils.
http://boingboing.net/2011/09/08/los-angeles-may-demand-id-for-buying-spray-paint-other-art-supplies.html
http://boingboing.net/2011/09/08/los-angeles-may-demand-id-for-buying-spray-paint-other-art-supplies.html
Monday, September 05, 2011
rupert boneham, best known for survivor reality show, may run for governor of indiana as a libertarian.
Thursday, September 01, 2011
my response to a weekly standard article
I live in indiana and have been refused the vote 6 times since passage of the ID poll tax. In Indiana to vote they want you to show a driver's license, if you have one, which costs $20. I believe that's a poll tax, unconstitutional under the Harman v Forssenius (1966) standard. Even for a "free" ID, only available to those without a licence, you need a birth certificate which usually costs $12. To me that's a poll tax. There is no argument or evidence in your post that showing ID is not a poll tax; you discuss other stuff instead.
I live in indiana and have been refused the vote 6 times since passage of the ID poll tax. In Indiana to vote they want you to show a driver's license, if you have one, which costs $20. I believe that's a poll tax, unconstitutional under the Harman v Forssenius (1966) standard. Even for a "free" ID, only available to those without a licence, you need a birth certificate which usually costs $12. To me that's a poll tax. There is no argument or evidence in your post that showing ID is not a poll tax; you discuss other stuff instead.
