Democrat Calls for Regulation of Internet Political Speech
President Obama said “you didn’t build that.” And since under his delusional view of the world, what has not been built by us should be controlled by the State to keep the State empowered.
Ronald Reagan captured the essence of this type of thinking when he said:
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
We could add to this, “when something competes with the growth of the Leviathan State, stop it in the name of ‘fairness.’”
The internet has flummoxed liberals. Sure, they have used it to their advantage (e.g., Media Matters, Huffington Post), but because it’s open and there are few gatekeepers, conservatives have a competing presence. They can jump on a story in an instant. They can post videos, capture sound bites, and offer commentary as a counter to leftist lies.
And this scares liberals to death. Something must be done.
There is no call by liberals to regulate unions since they are a major donor to the Democrat Party. University professors, most of whom vote for Democrats, aren’t regulated, and for the most part are paid for with government money. Our tax dollars are subsidizing the Democrat Party.
So it’s NOT a surprise that a Democrat wants more control of political content on the internet because it’s cutting into liberalism’s near media monopoly that is being challenged everywhere. Liberals hate real freedom.
Once the government is given authority to regulate one thing, it opens the door to everything.
In a surprise move late Friday, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.
Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long overdue,” she said.
The power play followed a deadlocked 3-3 vote on whether an Ohio anti-President Obama Internet campaign featuring two videos violated FEC rules when it did not report its finances or offer a disclosure on the ads. The ads were placed for free on YouTube and were not paid advertising.
Under a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation in a bid to boost voter participation in politics. Only Internet videos that are placed for a fee on websites, such as the Washington Examiner, are regulated just like normal TV ads.
Ravel’s statement suggests that she would regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website.
FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny internet campaigns like “Obama Girl,” and “Jib Jab” would also face regulations.