Washington, D.C. Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) joined two Democratic colleagues in sending a letter to Members of Congress asking them to vote to protect bloggers’ rights to “speak” freely on the internet.  He is a cosponsor of H.R. 4900, the “Internet Free Speech Protection Act,” introduced this month by Rep. Allen (D-ME) and Rep. Bass (D-NH).  This bill would enact strong protections for political blogging while limiting soft money campaign expenditures for web-based advertising, preserving the spirit of the landmark Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan). 

 

The opposition bill, H.R. 1606 by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), would create a loophole allowing unlimited expenditure of soft money for internet campaigning.  This bill, deceptively named the “Online Freedom of Speech Act,” would allow corporations to pay unrestricted amounts of money to produce internet video spots and website advertising without being subject to campaign finance regulations and flouting the intent of the McCain-Feingold law. 

 

Public interest groups Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, Campaign Legal Center, and U.S. PIRG, in addition to the New York Times and the Washington Post, strongly support H.R. 4900 and urge lawmakers to oppose Rep. Hensarling’s bill.  In their words, H.R. 4900 “strikes the right balance between protecting free speech rights on the Internet unencumbered by the campaign finance laws, while also ensuring that the campaign finance laws continue to protect against corruption and the appearance of corruption.”

 

 

The text of the letter follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Democratic Colleague:

 

This week, the House will be considering H.R. 1606, the “Online Freedom of Speech Act,” sponsored by Rep. Jeb Hensarling.  We are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 1606 and support the more reasonable approach proposed in H.R. 4900, the “Internet Free Speech Protection Act,” introduced by Representatives Tom Allen and Charles Bass.

 

By creating a blanket exemption from key provisions of the campaign finance laws for the Internet, H.R. 1606 would open enormous loopholes for political parties and federal candidates to make use of soft money to buy campaign ads on the Internet.  State parties would be able to spend unlimited amounts of soft money on video or display ads over the Internet that promote or attack federal candidates.  Finally, the Hensarling approach would permit corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts of soft money in coordination with federal candidates, for ads on the Internet that promote those candidates or attack their opponents.

 

By contrast, H.R. 4900 would protect the First Amendment rights of bloggers and other individuals to communicate on the Internet while maintaining key portions of the soft money ban enacted in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.  In fact, H.R. 4900 would provide greater protections for bloggers and other individuals than H.R. 1606 by addressing key areas that the Hensarling bill fails to address.  Among other things, H.R. 4900 would:

 

 

Last year, the D.C. Federal District Court of Appeals struck down a Federal Election Commission regulation that was identical to the Hensarling bill.  In doing so, the court said the regulation “would permit rampant circumvention of the campaign finance laws and foster corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

           

H.R. 4900 would protect free speech on the Internet without allowing soft money-financed campaign ads back into federal elections.  We urge you to support this reasonable, bipartisan approach and to oppose H.R. 1606 when it comes before the House.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

_________________                        _________________                        _________________

Howard L. Berman                              David E. Price                                      Martin T. Meehan

Member of Congress                         Member of Congress                         Member of Congress