« Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. | Main | Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine »
November 03, 2005BELTWAY BLOGROLL
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.
Excerpts from the Congressional Record, Nov. 2, 2005
I understand the procedural objections to this, and certainly when I made the suggestion during our hearing that we could probably handle this on the suspension, I believed that was the case. Obviously, there is more controversy than I had believed at the time.
But I still believe that this bill is very much worth supporting, and I do support this bill. What the bill before us does today is really a lot more modest than the rhetoric would lead one to believe. It does not repeal [the prohibition on] contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations or labor organizations. And all of the hoo-rah-rah about soft money and corporate money -- I am sure it is sincere -- is simply, as a matter of law, incorrect.
What this bill would do would be to allow communications on the Internet to avoid the heavy hand of regulation. And I do believe that is important. Today, if a local candidate has a Web page and they decide to say something very positive about the election of their party's candidate for president, they have a problem under the FEC rule.
I think it is very important since the court was not sure what our intention was when we passed BCRA that we should make it clear that the Internet is not part of the public communications covered by the act.
For the record, I would just like to say that in this case the bloggers have got it right. This bill will keep the FEC out of the business of regulating political speech on the Internet.
Posted by | 12:47 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://amcblog.nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/310
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.:
» Baldwin Votes Against Internet Free Speech from Zmetro.com
Tammy Baldwin voted against internet free speech yesterday [The House voted 225 to 182 on the Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606) -- a majority but less than the two-thirds required for a "suspension" bill to clear the House.... [Read More]
Tracked on November 3, 2005 02:12 PM
