OK, I think we're nearing a line

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.

Where is the Line?

So, Kos is freaking out. [2] [3]

I must admit, it was a little alarming to see GW's own Carol Darr listed as an "enemy" of Daily Kos and self-proclaimed "citizen journalists" of the world, in his scathing review of her comments to the FEC on behalf of the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet. Relatively new to this argument, I have a few first impressions to share (thanks so much to Kathie's Politech for giving me a super starting point):

1) Some sort of federal regulation of online publications seems inevitable.

2) Kos seems unwilling to yield any ground toward any kind of blog regulation. I'd even call him unreasonable at times, even saying that Darr is an embarrassment to GW.

3) The Online Coalition seems a lot more reasonable in its approach, a somewhat middle ground between Kos and IPDI. Highlights: Blogs do not have to provide disclaimers for involvement on a candidate's campaign and the proposal of not regulating forms of communications (such as blogging), but the nature of the communication. These components free blogs up to communicate freely in a manner that would coincide with the intent of campaign finance law.

3) IPDI...yeah, well, I think its overall message makes a lot of sense, but I do agree with Kos that some of Darr's case aims to protect the mainstream media too much:

"For thirty years the campaign finance laws have made a fundamental distinction between political activists and the news media, in order to protect a free press while at the same time limiting the influence of big money on federal elections. Until recently, the distinction between the news media and rest of us was clear and uncontroversial. Bloggers blur that distinction. If anyone can publish a blog, and if bloggers are treated as journalists, then we can all become journalists."

My problem, and Kos seems to agree, is that so many members of the press are already blurring the line concerning partisan involvement in elections. But the solution, to agree with Darr and IPDI, is not to get rid of that line. Perhaps we should hold James Carville and Bill Press, two openly partisan recipients of the media exemption, to the same standard.

4) Bob Bauer makes a lot of sense, calling for a minimum of restrictions (but clearly delineated standards) on bloggers. After all, it's political speech, and it must be protected, right?

I need input on this one.

Evaluating Dean, 100 Days In

Well, the blogging candidate has been back for 100 days now, and his brash, unapologetic style has been heading the Democratic Party in what appears to be two different directions. Howard Dean may never escape the scream references or his unreasonably thick neck, but he does seem to be winning over a crowd of Washington insiders who thought his chairmanship might be the kick that would finally knock the Democratic Party into irrelevance.

With a little help from Tom Delay and Bill Frist, though, Dean has managed to construct a theme for the Democratic revival, tying in Terri Schiavo, the filibuster and the privatization of social security into one big ball of "intrusiveness." The message: Keep the Republican leadership out of the private lives of Americans.

As Ben Goodard of The Hill wrote last week:

"For nearly 70 years, the Democratic Party has been saddled with the image of big-government advocates. Most Republican victories...have made big-spending, big-program Democrats the central issue...They attacked the Democrats not just for their big-government, big-spending liberal addiction but for their corrupt values as well. Not only did Democrats want to tax you into poverty, they wanted to destroy your family values."

Goodard goes on to say:

"This is the language the Democrats can build on to recapture the centrist voters who put the Republicans in power. It is not radical; it is reasonable. It is not the language of traditional liberalism; it is the language spoken in states such as Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia and Tennessee -- all states where Democrats could become competitive again if they get the words right."

Needless to say, not all are so praising of the half-doctor, half-governator. Today, in Business Week, Lee Walczak writes that Dean has disappointed some of the big wallets in the Democratic Party. The fundraising numbers look abysmal. Why? Walczak says it's a combination of personality difficulties and the alienation of the business circle by Dean's presidential campaign and his criticism of big business:

"Dean is not a natural fit for the 'stroke and joke' style that traditional party chiefs use to extract cash from well-heeled contributors. 'It appears that the chairman has come to the conclusion that he doesn't need major donors," sniffs one fat cat. 'He hasn't made any effort to reach out.'"

Replacing Terry McAuliffe, whose best suit was fundraising, makes Dean look a little sub-par. I guess it depends on what you think the primary role of the chairman should be. And, with that, I leave it to you to decide.

Nielsen's Number Nine

Jakob Nielsen has got it going on. Let's not question that.

In fact, most of what he and Vincent Flanders have to say in their respective critiques of modern web design hit home for me, recalling memories of web frustrations past. (If you're looking for a good example of mystery-meat navigation, check out indie rocker Ben Kweller's site before the new site -- which is reportedly "coming soon" -- appears.)

But I still cannot figure out Nielsen's gripe with links that open new windows (No. 9 in his "Top Ten Mistakes in Web Design"). It appears that not everyone agrees on this point. I've noticed that readings from our class page all open new windows, and I know that I hate getting lost in navigation on the pages where a link replaces the current page. With every interesting link, I find myself losing train of thought.

But Nielsen groups these new-window links into the much-demonized pop-up category. Are people really frightened that pop-ups are taking over their computers when they click on a link and it opens a new window? Am I really, in Nielsen's words, emptying the users' ashtrays on their carpet to try to sell them a vacuum cleaner?

[Note: Ironically, I've just noticed that my links do not, in fact, open a new window...I'm going to leave this for comic effect and change the template at a future time -- unless, of course, someone can really get across why I shouldn't.]