Mar 3, 2006 -- Reform Groups Urge House Members to Support Proposal by Center for Democracy and Technology to Exempt Bloggers from Campaign Finance Laws without Opening Loopholes

In a letter sent on March 3, 2006, reform groups urged House Members to support a proposal by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) that would exempt bloggers from the campaign finance laws without opening loopholes in the laws.

The letter also urged House Members to vote against H.R. 1606, introduced by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), which would create a blanket Internet exemption from the campaign finance laws and open gaping soft money loopholes in the laws.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter and a fact sheet comparing the CDT proposal and H.R 1606. These competing legislative proposals are expected to be voted on by the House as early as next week.

The groups that sent the letter include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

According to the letter from reform groups, ''The CDT proposal provides broader protections than the Hensarling bill for bloggers and other individuals engaged in online activities, while at the same time the CDT proposal does not open huge soft money loopholes in the campaign finance laws, as the Hensarling bill does.''

According to the fact sheet sent to Representatives, '' The CDT proposal exempts from the campaign finance laws individuals operating on their own Web sites, or otherwise on the Internet, if they are not buying ad space on someone else's Web site. All such online activity is excluded from the definition of 'public communication' in the campaign finance laws, and thus from the provisions of the campaign finance laws that apply to 'public communications.' This protection is the same as the Hensarling bill. ''

The fact sheet goes on to explain that, '' The Hensarling bill would allow corporations, labor unions or wealthy individuals in direct coordination with members of Congress and other federal candidates to spend unlimited amounts of soft money on campaign ads run on Internet Web sites. This would open a huge soft money loophole by allowing a federal candidate to write campaign ads and direct a corporate or union spender or wealthy individual on where to buy space on the Internet to place those ads. The corporate or union spender or wealthy individual could then spend an unlimited amount of soft money to place the campaign ads on the Internet at the candidate's direction, right up to the day of the election. The CDT proposal does not allow this use of soft money in federal campaigns. ''

The fact sheet also states, '' The Hensarling bill would allow state parties to spend an unlimited amount of soft money to buy campaign ads on the Internet to promote or attack federal candidates. A key provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibits state parties from spending soft money on campaign ads to promote or attack federal candidates. The Hensarling bill would open another huge soft money loophole, allowing state parties to use soft money in federal campaigns for campaign ads they buy on the Internet, or run on their own Web site. The CDT proposal does not allow this use of soft money in federal campaigns. ''

According to the fact sheet, '' The CDT proposal provides that online press activities qualify for the 'media exemption' from the campaign finance laws. Current law exempts press entities from the requirements of the campaign finance laws. The CDT proposal specifies that this exemption includes press activities conducted over the Internet. The Hensarling bill does nothing on this. ''

The fact sheet also lists other reforms made by the CDT proposal to provide protections for bloggers and others using the Internet that are not provided by the Hensarling bill. They include the following:

*The CDT proposal provides new protections against triggering ''political committee'' status under the campaign finance laws for a group of individuals operating online.

*The CDT proposal provides protection against reporting online activities as ''independent expenditures.''

*The CDT proposal provides protection against the requirement to include a ''disclaimer'' on Internet communications.

The letter from the reform groups concludes, ''Our groups strongly support the free speech rights of bloggers and the important role played by the Internet in promoting political discussion and activities. The CDT proposal is the right way to address the Internet and campaign finance issues involved here; the Hensarling proposal is the wrong way.''

March 3, 2006

Dear Representative,

The House is expected to shortly consider H.R. 1606, legislation introduced by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX).

The Hensarling bill would grant an exemption for Internet communications from the campaign finance laws that would allow members of Congress and political parties to use corrupting soft money to pay for campaign ads on the Internet.

The New York Times and The Washington Post wrote strong editorials opposing the Internet exemption contained in the Hensarling bill, when the bill was considered in the House last November. Copies of the editorials are enclosed.

According to the Times editorial this effort ''to exempt the Web from the law of the land should be denied by any lawmaker mindful of polls showing that government corruption is a dominant public concern.''

The Post editorial noted that ''the concerns about the potentially corrupting influence of six-figure donations apply just as much if that cash is spent in cyberspace.''

This week the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) released an alternative proposal to the Hensarling bill. Enclosed is a fact sheet on the CDT proposal.

CDT is a highly-regarded non-profit, public policy organization that is ''dedicated to promoting the democratic potential of today's open, decentralized global Internet,'' and that ''champions the rights of individuals to communicate, publish and obtain an unprecedented array of information on the Internet,'' according to its mission statement.

The CDT proposal provides broader protections than the Hensarling bill for bloggers and other individuals engaged in online activities, while at the same time the CDT proposal does not open huge soft money loopholes in the campaign finance laws, as the Hensarling bill does.

Our groups strongly support the free speech rights of bloggers and the important role played by the Internet in promoting political discussion and activities. The CDT proposal is the right way to address the Internet and campaign finance issues involved here; the Hensarling proposal is the wrong way.

We urge you to support the CDT approach and to vote against the Hensarling bill.

Campaign Legal Center League of Women Voters
Common Cause Public Citizen
Democracy 21 U.S.PIRG

Fact Sheet on Proposal by the Center for Democracy and Technology
to Exempt Bloggers from the Campaign Finance Laws

The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) has released a proposal to exempt bloggers from the campaign finance laws.

The CDT proposal provides a broader and more comprehensive approach to exempting bloggers from the campaign finance laws than H.R. 1606 does, legislation introduced by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). At the same time, the CDT proposal does not open gaping soft money loopholes in the campaign finance laws, as the Hensarling bill does:

The CDT proposal exempts from the campaign finance laws individuals operating on their own Web sites, or otherwise on the Internet, if they are not buying ad space on someone else's Web site. All such online activity is excluded from the definition of ''public communication'' in the campaign finance laws, and thus from the provisions of the campaign finance laws that apply to ''public communications.'' This protection is the same as the Hensarling bill.

The Hensarling bill would allow corporations, labor unions or wealthy individuals in direct coordination with members of Congress and other federal candidates to spend unlimited amounts of soft money on campaign ads run on Internet Web sites . This would open a huge soft money loophole by allowing a federal candidate to write campaign ads and direct a corporate or union spender or wealthy individual on where to buy space on the Internet to place those ads. The corporate or union spender or wealthy individual could then spend an unlimited amount of soft money to place the campaign ads on the Internet at the candidate's direction, right up to the day of the election. The CDT proposal does not allow this use of soft money in federal campaigns.

The Hensarling bill would allow state parties to spend an unlimited amount of soft money to buy campaign ads on the Internet to promote or attack federal candidates. A key provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibits state parties from spending soft money on campaign ads to promote or attack federal candidates. The Hensarling bill would open another huge soft money loophole, allowing state parties to use soft money in federal campaigns for campaign ads they buy on the Internet, or run on their own Web site. The CDT proposal does not allow this use of soft money in federal campaigns.

The CDT proposal provides new protections against triggering ''political committee'' status under the campaign finance laws for a group of individuals operating online. Current law provides that a group of individuals which makes $1,000 in ''expenditures,'' and which has a ''major purpose'' to influence federal elections, must register as a ''political committee.'' Although the FEC has said that typical online costs do not count as ''expenditures,'' the CDT proposal raises the threshold for becoming a ''political committee'' from $1,000 to $10,000 for Internet-related expenses, providing more protection against triggering ''political committee'' status. The Hensarling bill does nothing on this.

The CDT proposal provides protection against reporting online activities as ''independent expenditures.'' Current law requires any individual who spends $250 or more on independent express advocacy to report such spending to the FEC. The CDT proposal raises this threshold from $250 to $5,000 for communications made over the Internet by an individual, thus providing more protection against triggering a reporting requirement. The Hensarling bill does nothing on this.

The CDT proposal provides protection against the requirement to include a ''disclaimer'' on Internet communications. Current law requires any person who expressly advocates a candidate's election or solicits campaign funds through a public communication to include a disclaimer stating who is paying for the communication. The CDT proposal requires a disclaimer for communications by an individual over the Internet only where more than $5,000 is spent. The Hensarling bill does nothing on this.

The CDT proposal provides that online press activities qualify for the ''media exemption'' from the campaign finance laws. Current law exempts press entities from the requirements of the campaign finance laws. The CDT proposal specifies that this exemption includes press activities conducted over the Internet. The Hensarling bill does nothing on this.

The CDT proposal protects individuals who buy ads on the Internet advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, unless they spend significant amounts doing so. The CDT bill excludes from the definition of ''public communication'' campaign ads to influence federal election that are purchased on another person's Web site unless an aggregate amount of $5,000 is spent. The Hensarling bill excludes from the definition of ''public communications'' all campaign ads to influence federal elections purchased on another person's Web site, which allows unlimited soft money spending on such ads by corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals operating in coordination with federal candidates, and by state political parties.

# # #