FEC chair warns of chilling regulations, book ban on conservative publishers

[Kassc22 0]

This may seem trivial to some of you since this book was eventually approved under other regulations, but to me it is "chilling". I am a Librarian, a Library Director to be exact, and I oppose any type of ban on books in principle. The fact that most of the writings that seem to be targeted for regulation are political is even more worrisome. The American people deserve to know EVERYTHING our government is doing. It is our government and we are not sheep to be told what the "ruling" class will do and have the process hidden from us. Our government was designed to be open and transparent. Those who were elected over the years seem to have forgotten that and government has become more cumbersome and secretive. It really disappoints me that it seems to be the Democratic party that is determined to whittle away at free speech when it comes to politics. I know many people were upset over Citizens United but it really is a slippery slope when you start banning speech of any type, even hate speech as horrible as that sounds. I may hate everything you say and disagree with it with every fiber of my being, but I will defend your right to say it with my last breath. Why? Because this is America and you have that right; at least for now.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/fec-chair-warns-of-chilling-regulations-book-ban-on-conservative-publishers/article/2551197

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I'm not sure but, my interpretation of the article was not a limit to free speech. I think what the committee was saying was, they feared a campaign, or PAC, could/would buy up large quantities of candidate's book and, consequently transfer large sums of campaign money to the candidate personally.

I don't understand the partisan slant when the two votes were 6-0 and 4-2 with three Democrats and three Republicans.

[autigeremt 6,599]

Bans on literature shouldn't happen, no matter the party, person, etc. If they want to go out and buy books then so be it. I don't trust the two sides so the partisan "slant" doesn't register for me.

[AU-24 3,063]

Bans on literature shouldn't happen, no matter the party, person, etc. If they want to go out and buy books then so be it. I don't trust the two sides so the partisan "slant" doesn't register for me.

Agree, we should be fair to all groups, and all sides, in literature.

Now when it comes to IRS audits, that is a totally different story.

[autigeremt 6,599]

Bans on literature shouldn't happen, no matter the party, person, etc. If they want to go out and buy books then so be it. I don't trust the two sides so the partisan "slant" doesn't register for me.

Agree, we should be fair to all groups, and all sides, in literature.

Now when it comes to IRS audits, that is a totally different story. :)/>

Or the radio.

[cptau 169]

I'm not sure but, my interpretation of the article was not a limit to free speech. I think what the committee was saying was, they feared a campaign, or PAC, could/would buy up large quantities of candidate's book and, consequently transfer large sums of campaign money to the candidate personally.

I don't understand the partisan slant when the two votes were 6-0 and 4-2 with three Democrats and three Republicans.

But is ok for a publisher to give Clinton who is not officially running, 14 million dollars, hoping she will run and remember where that 14 million came from. Of course Hillary probably won't run and simon and schuster owned by CBS is out a lot money for books that are mostly being shredded to recycle the paper.

[Kassc22 0]

I'm not sure but, my interpretation of the article was not a limit to free speech. I think what the committee was saying was, they feared a campaign, or PAC, could/would buy up large quantities of candidate's book and, consequently transfer large sums of campaign money to the candidate personally.

I don't understand the partisan slant when the two votes were 6-0 and 4-2 with three Democrats and three Republicans.

If a PAC does that it should be easy enough to track and would make Ryan in violation of the law. The FEC could then prosecute him and put him jail where most of our legislators belong. That is no reason to put limitations on books. The partisan slant came out of one sentence, "He recently warned that conservative online media, like the Drudge Report, could face regulation as Democrats move to tighten the so-called “media exemption” that lets the press cover politics any way they want," and the backstory on those votes. Yes, the one vote passed 6-0 AFTER deadlocking 3-3 on the "broad media exemption." Rather than allowing this book to be published under the same rules as other books, or newspaper articles they imposed rules on it that even go so far as to regulate the price and the publishers politics. Of course it passed 6-0 under those rules; it was the only way that the vote could go forward and so the Republicans compromised and let the Dems have it their way. The 4-2 vote allows Ryan no more than two sentences on his own websites to promote the book. The Republicans agreed to limit his ability to advertise something he wrote to TWO sentences on websites he owns just so he could advertise it. That means TWO Democrats thought that 2 sentences was too much. Yes, bottom line the book can be published and most people will never know there is even a story behind it or regulations on the book. It may seem trivial to some people, but I firmly believe when you start putting any kind of regulations on free speech you risk losing it.

I do not trust the government period. The only reason this is being laid at the feet of the Democrats is the reporting on the matter is pointing to them as the culprit. The one blowing the whistle on them happens to be the Republican chairman of the committee.

Background on FEC:

The six Commissioners, no more than three of whom may represent the same political party, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Commissioners serve full time and are responsible for administering and enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act. They generally meet twice a week, once in closed session to discuss matters that, by law, must remain confidential, and once in a meeting open to the public. At these meetings, they formulate policy and vote on significant legal and administrative matters.

So far the Democrats haven't done anything except flirt with the possibility of changing the regulations. From my research it has become clear that on this at least the Republicans are being the more liberal of the two parties. Their votes have always been to loosely enforce regulations and is applied consistently whether the entity involved is Michael Moore or Sean Hannity. The Democrats on the commission while applying the rules loosely toward liberal entities have voted to punish those on the conservative side.

This issue has been flying under the radar for a while. Any time you start to talk about shutting down free speech, whether it be verbal or written, I get very nervous. A free press has and always will be crucial to America as we know it. The written political thoughts of the time are what gave us the American Revolution and the country as we have today. If I wanted to live in a place where my information was controlled I'd move to North Korea. Even more disturbing is that the FEC is not the only member of alphabet soup involved. The FCC (You all remember the failed "Fairness Doctrine" debacle) tried to get in on the action until one of the Republican commissioners blew the whistle. My bottom line is the government needs to stay out of anything that even smells of speech regulation:

http://online.wsj.co...352780239373504

The same Federal Election Commission that represented to the Supreme Court that it could ban books now claims the authority to censor Sunday-morning news programs...

http://washingtonexa...article/2548163

But Goodman cited several examples where the FEC has considered regulating conservative media, including Sean Hannity's radio show and Citizens United's movie division. Those efforts to lift the media exemption died in split votes at the politically evenly divided board, often with Democrats seeking regulation.

http://politicaloutc...just-announced/

“This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced,” says Ajit Pai, one of the FCC’s five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans). “I’ve never had any input into the process,” adds Pai, who brought the story to the public’s attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.

http://www.nationalr...-eliana-johnson

"The Federal Communications Commission has pulled the plug on its controversial “Critical Information Needs” survey that sparked a bipartisan uproar over government oversight of news gathering. "

[homersapien 11,366]

Well it's certainly no surprise you see this as a partisan issue, it was written with a distinctly partisan perspective.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Thanks for that Kassc.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I'm not sure but, my interpretation of the article was not a limit to free speech. I think what the committee was saying was, they feared a campaign, or PAC, could/would buy up large quantities of candidate's book and, consequently transfer large sums of campaign money to the candidate personally.

I don't understand the partisan slant when the two votes were 6-0 and 4-2 with three Democrats and three Republicans.

If a PAC does that it should be easy enough to track and would make Ryan in violation of the law. The FEC could then prosecute him and put him jail where most of our legislators belong. That is no reason to put limitations on books. The partisan slant came out of one sentence, "He recently warned that conservative online media, like the Drudge Report, could face regulation as Democrats move to tighten the so-called “media exemption” that lets the press cover politics any way they want," and the backstory on those votes. Yes, the one vote passed 6-0 AFTER deadlocking 3-3 on the "broad media exemption." Rather than allowing this book to be published under the same rules as other books, or newspaper articles they imposed rules on it that even go so far as to regulate the price and the publishers politics. Of course it passed 6-0 under those rules; it was the only way that the vote could go forward and so the Republicans compromised and let the Dems have it their way. The 4-2 vote allows Ryan no more than two sentences on his own websites to promote the book. The Republicans agreed to limit his ability to advertise something he wrote to TWO sentences on websites he owns just so he could advertise it. That means TWO Democrats thought that 2 sentences was too much. Yes, bottom line the book can be published and most people will never know there is even a story behind it or regulations on the book. It may seem trivial to some people, but I firmly believe when you start putting any kind of regulations on free speech you risk losing it.

I do not trust the government period. The only reason this is being laid at the feet of the Democrats is the reporting on the matter is pointing to them as the culprit. The one blowing the whistle on them happens to be the Republican chairman of the committee.

Background on FEC:

The six Commissioners, no more than three of whom may represent the same political party, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Commissioners serve full time and are responsible for administering and enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act. They generally meet twice a week, once in closed session to discuss matters that, by law, must remain confidential, and once in a meeting open to the public. At these meetings, they formulate policy and vote on significant legal and administrative matters.

So far the Democrats haven't done anything except flirt with the possibility of changing the regulations. From my research it has become clear that on this at least the Republicans are being the more liberal of the two parties. Their votes have always been to loosely enforce regulations and is applied consistently whether the entity involved is Michael Moore or Sean Hannity. The Democrats on the commission while applying the rules loosely toward liberal entities have voted to punish those on the conservative side.

This issue has been flying under the radar for a while. Any time you start to talk about shutting down free speech, whether it be verbal or written, I get very nervous. A free press has and always will be crucial to America as we know it. The written political thoughts of the time are what gave us the American Revolution and the country as we have today. If I wanted to live in a place where my information was controlled I'd move to North Korea. Even more disturbing is that the FEC is not the only member of alphabet soup involved. The FCC (You all remember the failed "Fairness Doctrine" debacle) tried to get in on the action until one of the Republican commissioners blew the whistle. My bottom line is the government needs to stay out of anything that even smells of speech regulation:

http://online.wsj.co...352780239373504

The same Federal Election Commission that represented to the Supreme Court that it could ban books now claims the authority to censor Sunday-morning news programs...

http://washingtonexa...article/2548163

But Goodman cited several examples where the FEC has considered regulating conservative media, including Sean Hannity's radio show and Citizens United's movie division. Those efforts to lift the media exemption died in split votes at the politically evenly divided board, often with Democrats seeking regulation.

http://politicaloutc...just-announced/

“This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced,” says Ajit Pai, one of the FCC’s five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans). “I’ve never had any input into the process,” adds Pai, who brought the story to the public’s attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.

http://www.nationalr...-eliana-johnson

"The Federal Communications Commission has pulled the plug on its controversial “Critical Information Needs” survey that sparked a bipartisan uproar over government oversight of news gathering. "

Make no mistake, in fundamental principle, I absolutely agree with you. However, I also see some danger in equating speech and money. I fear that if our God given rights are granted to corporations and organizations, we will find that their economic power and, it's ability to purchase political power, will dominate more than speech. I think we have to be cautious when it comes to any group who seeks to garner, and wield power over society, whether it is the government, the parties, business, even religious organizations.

I can see a noble cause on both sides of the argument. I can also see ulterior agendas.

I believe it is important for us, as individuals, to recognize the danger of concentrated power to our INDIVIDUAL liberties. Do powerful economic and political forces seek compromise and consensus? Do they attempt to dictate and dominate? I believe BOTH parties have become efficient conduits for the meeting of economic and political power. I believe you can make an argument for the assertion that, neither party seeks to represent a consensus of it's individual members but rather rally a core group of unconditional followers.

In short, I believe we can neither allow a powerful government, powerful entities, or a combination of both to control society through media. However, no amount of regulation, or deregulation, can safeguard a populace that surrenders it's ability to think individually, critically. If we the people are willing to believe in rhetoric, be dogmatic ideologues, and become uncompromising zealots, we are already lost. If we no longer respect democracy or each other, if we would rather impose our will than protect individual freedoms, then we no longer understand the premise of our government.

To be more specific, I believe you can effectively argue that media is more deregulated than ever but, the control is more concentrated (probably not in terms of absolute number of outlets but, in terms of dominating the message) than ever. I think you have to weigh the potential effects of both. I think we have to ask ourselves if we are being systematically divided.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I'm not sure but, my interpretation of the article was not a limit to free speech. I think what the committee was saying was, they feared a campaign, or PAC, could/would buy up large quantities of candidate's book and, consequently transfer large sums of campaign money to the candidate personally.

I don't understand the partisan slant when the two votes were 6-0 and 4-2 with three Democrats and three Republicans.

If a PAC does that it should be easy enough to track and would make Ryan in violation of the law. The FEC could then prosecute him and put him jail where most of our legislators belong. That is no reason to put limitations on books. The partisan slant came out of one sentence, "He recently warned that conservative online media, like the Drudge Report, could face regulation as Democrats move to tighten the so-called “media exemption” that lets the press cover politics any way they want," and the backstory on those votes. Yes, the one vote passed 6-0 AFTER deadlocking 3-3 on the "broad media exemption." Rather than allowing this book to be published under the same rules as other books, or newspaper articles they imposed rules on it that even go so far as to regulate the price and the publishers politics. Of course it passed 6-0 under those rules; it was the only way that the vote could go forward and so the Republicans compromised and let the Dems have it their way. The 4-2 vote allows Ryan no more than two sentences on his own websites to promote the book. The Republicans agreed to limit his ability to advertise something he wrote to TWO sentences on websites he owns just so he could advertise it. That means TWO Democrats thought that 2 sentences was too much. Yes, bottom line the book can be published and most people will never know there is even a story behind it or regulations on the book. It may seem trivial to some people, but I firmly believe when you start putting any kind of regulations on free speech you risk losing it.

I do not trust the government period. The only reason this is being laid at the feet of the Democrats is the reporting on the matter is pointing to them as the culprit. The one blowing the whistle on them happens to be the Republican chairman of the committee.

Background on FEC:

The six Commissioners, no more than three of whom may represent the same political party, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Commissioners serve full time and are responsible for administering and enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act. They generally meet twice a week, once in closed session to discuss matters that, by law, must remain confidential, and once in a meeting open to the public. At these meetings, they formulate policy and vote on significant legal and administrative matters.

So far the Democrats haven't done anything except flirt with the possibility of changing the regulations. From my research it has become clear that on this at least the Republicans are being the more liberal of the two parties. Their votes have always been to loosely enforce regulations and is applied consistently whether the entity involved is Michael Moore or Sean Hannity. The Democrats on the commission while applying the rules loosely toward liberal entities have voted to punish those on the conservative side.

This issue has been flying under the radar for a while. Any time you start to talk about shutting down free speech, whether it be verbal or written, I get very nervous. A free press has and always will be crucial to America as we know it. The written political thoughts of the time are what gave us the American Revolution and the country as we have today. If I wanted to live in a place where my information was controlled I'd move to North Korea. Even more disturbing is that the FEC is not the only member of alphabet soup involved. The FCC (You all remember the failed "Fairness Doctrine" debacle) tried to get in on the action until one of the Republican commissioners blew the whistle. My bottom line is the government needs to stay out of anything that even smells of speech regulation:

http://online.wsj.co...352780239373504

The same Federal Election Commission that represented to the Supreme Court that it could ban books now claims the authority to censor Sunday-morning news programs...

http://washingtonexa...article/2548163

But Goodman cited several examples where the FEC has considered regulating conservative media, including Sean Hannity's radio show and Citizens United's movie division. Those efforts to lift the media exemption died in split votes at the politically evenly divided board, often with Democrats seeking regulation.

http://politicaloutc...just-announced/

“This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced,” says Ajit Pai, one of the FCC’s five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans). “I’ve never had any input into the process,” adds Pai, who brought the story to the public’s attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.

http://www.nationalr...-eliana-johnson

"The Federal Communications Commission has pulled the plug on its controversial “Critical Information Needs” survey that sparked a bipartisan uproar over government oversight of news gathering. "

Make no mistake, in fundamental principle, I absolutely agree with you. However, I also see some danger in equating speech and money. I fear that if our God given rights are granted to corporations and organizations, we will find that their economic power and, it's ability to purchase political power, will dominate more than speech. I think we have to be cautious when it comes to any group who seeks to garner, and wield power over society, whether it is the government, the parties, business, even religious organizations.

I can see a noble cause on both sides of the argument. I can also see ulterior agendas.

I believe it is important for us, as individuals, to recognize the danger of concentrated power to our INDIVIDUAL liberties. Do powerful economic and political forces seek compromise and consensus? Do they attempt to dictate and dominate? I believe BOTH parties have become efficient conduits for the meeting of economic and political power. I believe you can make an argument for the assertion that, neither party seeks to represent a consensus of it's individual members but rather rally a core group of unconditional followers.

In short, I believe we can neither allow a powerful government, powerful entities, or a combination of both to control society through media. However, no amount of regulation, or deregulation, can safeguard a populace that surrenders it's ability to think individually, critically. If we the people are willing to believe in rhetoric, be dogmatic ideologues, and become uncompromising zealots, we are already lost. If we no longer respect democracy or each other, if we would rather impose our will than protect individual freedoms, then we no longer understand the premise of our government.

To be more specific, I believe you can effectively argue that media is more deregulated than ever but, the control is more concentrated (probably not in terms of absolute number of outlets but, in terms of dominating the message) than ever. I think you have to weigh the potential effects of both. I think we have to ask ourselves if we are being systematically divided.

This is an awesome treatise right here. The sum total of ichy critical thinking has delivered one answer for everything...its America's fault. I dont need to ask myself if "we're being systematically divided" that's as obvious as the day is long and, personally, I dont think its the media that's doing the dividing

[homersapien 11,366]

Make no mistake, in fundamental principle, I absolutely agree with you. However, I also see some danger in equating speech and money. I fear that if our God given rights are granted to corporations and organizations, we will find that their economic power and, it's ability to purchase political power, will dominate more than speech. I think we have to be cautious when it comes to any group who seeks to garner, and wield power over society, whether it is the government, the parties, business, even religious organizations.....

Apparently, that's a done deal. But it can get worse.

http://www.princeton...ries 3-7-14.pdf

[homersapien 11,366]

This is an awesome treatise right here. The sum total of ichy critical thinking has delivered one answer for everything...its America's fault. I dont need to ask myself if "we're being systematically divided" that's as obvious as the day is long and, personally, I dont think its the media that's doing the dividing

If you've got absolutely nothing to add, then the least you can do is eliminate all the trailing quotes. :-\

[Kassc22 0]

Make no mistake, in fundamental principle, I absolutely agree with you. However, I also see some danger in equating speech and money. I fear that if our God given rights are granted to corporations and organizations, we will find that their economic power and, it's ability to purchase political power, will dominate more than speech. I think we have to be cautious when it comes to any group who seeks to garner, and wield power over society, whether it is the government, the parties, business, even religious organizations.

I can see a noble cause on both sides of the argument. I can also see ulterior agendas.

I believe it is important for us, as individuals, to recognize the danger of concentrated power to our INDIVIDUAL liberties. Do powerful economic and political forces seek compromise and consensus? Do they attempt to dictate and dominate? I believe BOTH parties have become efficient conduits for the meeting of economic and political power. I believe you can make an argument for the assertion that, neither party seeks to represent a consensus of it's individual members but rather rally a core group of unconditional followers.

In short, I believe we can neither allow a powerful government, powerful entities, or a combination of both to control society through media. However, no amount of regulation, or deregulation, can safeguard a populace that surrenders it's ability to think individually, critically. If we the people are willing to believe in rhetoric, be dogmatic ideologues, and become uncompromising zealots, we are already lost. If we no longer respect democracy or each other, if we would rather impose our will than protect individual freedoms, then we no longer understand the premise of our government.

To be more specific, I believe you can effectively argue that media is more deregulated than ever but, the control is more concentrated (probably not in terms of absolute number of outlets but, in terms of dominating the message) than ever. I think you have to weigh the potential effects of both. I think we have to ask ourselves if we are being systematically divided.

I see your point and I agree in some ways. I can see how corporations could get out of hand. The problem in my eyes is the regulation. I think almost all regulations that get out of control start off with well meaning intentions. The problem is where do you draw the line? It is much easier to take away the next level of freedom when the first is gone. Its a very complicated issue. How do you preserve pure freedom while keeping others from corrupting a process? Obviously you can't and that leaves us at the mercy of those in leadership positions. Lately I don't believe this nation has done so well at picking leaders.