Regulate us, Please!

A lot of small website operators who post on-line political journals are up in arms over the possibility that the Federal Election Commission or localities like San Francisco may apply campaign finance rules to the Internet. But, as the publisher of a blog myself, I say "bring on the regulations!"

Bloggers fear that any limits on the use of massive contributions to buy advertising online will somehow compromise the Internet's great potential to democratize the flow of information. But just the opposite is true. The Internet should be treated no differently than any other means of communication when it comes to sensible limits on big money in politics.

As with other media like print, TV, and radio, corporations should not use money from their customers and shareholders to influence political elections unless those customers and shareholders voluntarily contribute into a corporation's political committee. A corporation should not use its own website or e-mails to promote or attack candidates. Nor should it pay others to promote or attack candidates in cyberspace.

As with other media, there should be limits on how much individuals can contribute to influence political campaigns through on-line advertising campaigns. These limits are ridiculously high in current law, but that's a story for another day.

As with TV or newspapers, paid Internet ads should disclose who paid for them.

Many websites and blogs are in-effect playing the same role that news reporters play in traditional media sources. There should be an exemption from campaign finance laws for legitimate news websites that are not paid by anyone to report anything in particular and that have readers that voluntarily seek out the information. This should hold for corporate media sources, like CBS, or Fox, or websites like the Daily Kos, or Instapundit so long as they don't accept payment for their news reporting like Armstrong Williams did.

But if we allow cyberspace to become just another venue for wealthy interests to bombard us with political advertising funded by contributions from a small number of people, we stand to lose the very best feature of the Internet: a level playing field. Right now, just about anyone can start a blog with little to no money. It fulfills the theoretical promise of democracy where everyone is free to set up a soapbox on the town square and speak their mind.

Allowing corporations and wealthy individuals to use unlimited and undisclosed contributions on the Internet would be like letting them build a rock concert-sized stage in the middle of the town square. The rest of us would still theoretically be free to set up our soapboxes, but we'd be pushed to the side and be less likely to be heard.

If one person uses a lot of money to get a candidate they support elected, that distorts the political marketplace regardless of what they spend that money on. Elected officials become beholden to the ideas of wealthy interests and less interested in, and accountable to, the rest of us. Even if there is no explicit deal between the donor and a candidate, the system becomes corrupt because candidates quickly learn that those who take positions favored by big money will be able to outraise and defeat candidates who stand up to special interests.

Sensible campaign finance rules need not interfere with the basic operations of most bloggers. Only websites that receive money from political campaigns, or that spend their own money promoting their own political positions beyond their website, would need to worry about campaign finance regulations. The few bloggers that do take money for campaigning should play by the same rules that apply to their brick-and-mortar brethren.