Public communication means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising. The term public communication shall not include communications over the Internet.The point of the legislation was to change the definition of "public communication" to include the Internet.
In the comments section of my original post on this subject, WMD regular reader Kevin Irwin asks:
Would this legislation exempt internet advertisements from FEC restrictions as well?I asked Kevin to elaborate on what he referred to as internet advertising and he wrote back:
Banner ads, sidebar ads, videos, etc.Personally, I have no problem with a candidate taking out a BlogAd (in fact, I'd really love it if they would...). My concern is a repeat of what happened with the DaschlevThine blog where in Mr. Thune ultimately hired one of the bloggers and there was no disclosure.
Furthermore, I would expect that such a BlogAd would have the appropriate "Paid for by..." text that is required by federal election law for any other kind of campaign advertising.
It does not appear that HR 1606 would place a restriction on Internet advertising beyond what already exists for campaign advertising. I look at that as a strength of the legislation, not a weakness.
4:00PM Update
Fellow S. O. B.-er Eric Kephas from Project Logic explains Rep. Schmidt's "no" vote:Schmidt did not vote against the bill. She voted against suspending the rules to bring it to the floor, which requires a 2/3rds majority. That is why it was "defeated" even though it had majority support, 225-182.Forgive my skepticism, Eric, but this sounds like she voted for it before she voted against it. That was the other guy's schtick.
Many opponents of the bill weren't against the bill's intention as much as its execution. That appears to be the rational behind Schmidt's vote, as I'm told she found the language problematic, and felt it required an amendment.This makes more sense. Let's have some more detail on her true feelings and leave the nonsense to the other guys...
I still don't feel I have a real good idea of what her problem with the bill was. There wasn't any rocket science in this bill...it reads pretty straight foward if you ask me...
I'm not trying to be difficult, I just need more than spin...
Mark's Remarks
Let's not be too hard on Mean Jeanne. Sometimes the legalese in a bill and the ramifications, despite the coolest intentions, can be very problematic. For example, founding member of the Arizona chapter of the NAACP and presidential candidate Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 not because, as Al Franken alleges, that all Republicans hate blacks, but rather he disapproved of some of the language and execution of the act. He was all for rights, but he wanted it done differently. So, I say, let's not get all nasty on Mean Jeanne yet.
