« Blog Regulation From Italy To Burma | Main | The Line Between Grassroots And 'Astroturfing' »

The Blogosphere's Love Affair With The FEC

Two years ago, bloggers couldn't stand the Federal Election Commission. They bad-mouthed commissioners, flooded the agency with don't-regulate-us briefs and, after a year of grassroots lobbying and badgering, eventually won a media exemption from campaign finance law.

But now that bloggers have their own exemption (confirmed by the FEC this summer), they appear to have fallen in love with the FEC. One thing is clear: They are not the least bit reluctant to use election law against their political enemies.

Liberal bloggers, who do not have the same free-speech qualms as conservatives about campaign finance rules in general, turned to the FEC for help first. Liberal blogger Lane Hudson filed complaints in August and September against two Republican presidential candidates, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.

But this week, conservative bloggers Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan of Blogs for Bush took aim at Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Their complaint accuses the Clinton campaign of routinely breaking rules against campaign contributions in the name of another and by foreign nationals without permanent resident status. Both charges are related to fundraising for Clinton by Norman Hsu and rely on a Los Angeles Times article for evidence.

We'll have to wait and see how the FEC resolves the cases and whether the trend of blogger-induced complaints will continue. For now, I just wanted to note the irony of bloggers who counted the FEC as Public Enemy No. 1 a couple of years ago now regularly contributing to the flow of paperwork streaming through that bureaucracy.

Posted by Danny | 11:40 AM

Comments

Maybe not so much a love affair as giving the bad guys a taste of the consequences of what they say they want. Sort of like how the Democrats loved the special prosecutors' offices until they started grinding up people like Clinton and Cisneros. Maybe 'campaign finance reform' wil look a little less desirable and constitutional if it curbs your freedom forces you to spend time and resources explaining stuff-thereby creating concensus that the best thing to do constitutionally and practically is to junk the structure and simply require complete transparency.

HBH | 11.02.07 12:57 PM

Is it really hypocritical to, on one hand, work to change the existing laws and, on the other, to work to ensure that all parties play by the same rules? I don't think so...

Matt Knowles | 11.02.07 01:02 PM

"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." - Ulysses S. Grant, First Inaugural Address

Perhaps the politicians will lose their taste for McCain-Feingold type shenanigans if they're actually forced to abide by the laws they passed.

Thief | 11.02.07 01:05 PM

Finally, with the early primary season, the FEC has the opportunity to intervene and nail a Presidential campaign before election day. There is plenty of apparent wrongdoing by the Hillary campaign regarding which the FEC can launch an avalanche of subpoenas and perhaps make the case for criminal referrals.

anolp | 11.02.07 11:57 PM

Post a Comment