Peter C. makes a good point: We can't have just anyone evading the campaign finance restrictions simply because they're "bloggers." But I don't think the current law allows members of the media have the ability to spend money on or advocate candidates willy-nilly. If bloggers received the journalist exception, that alone wouldn't allow a George Soros-type to funnel millions into a campaign. Aren't we confusing 527s and blogs here? Aren't these two separate issues?
Admittedly, 527s seem like the ultimate loophole to campaign finance reform initiatives. After all, you can be George Soros and spend a ton of money on defeating a particular candidate through 527s. Some would say the problem exists in the loophole that provides for 527s.
But is this what the fight is really about? The campaign finance restrictions on bloggers and the like? To me, campaign finance is about transparency, and the current system provides transparency through the mandatory reporting that a campaign must follow. How would further regulation affect this? How would this affect blogging?
If the debate really isn't about campaign finance, then what is it about? Again, I need help.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment