Thursday, March 03, 2005

the glass is not half empty

So all the blogs are (rightly) abuzz about this blatantly wrong-headed, unconstitutional, proposed limitation on free speech.

How can the government place a value on a blog that praises some politician?
How do we measure that? Design fees, that sort of thing? The FEC did an advisory opinion in the late 1990s (in the Leo Smith case) that I don't think we'd hold to today, saying that if you owned a computer, you'd have to calculate what percentage of the computer cost and electricity went to political advocacy.

How about a hyperlink? Is it worth a penny, or a dollar, to a campaign?
I don't know. But I'll tell you this. One thing the commission has argued over, debated, wrestled with, is how to value assistance to a campaign.

Corporations aren't allowed to donate to campaigns. Suppose a corporation devotes 20 minutes of a secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign raises $35,000. Do we value the violation on the amount of corporate resources actually spent, maybe $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission has usually taken the view that we value it by the amount raised. It's still going to be difficult to value the link, but the value of the link will go up very quickly.


But I see a loophole...

If we only say bad things about a candidate, we should receive money out of the deal, right?

1 comment:

sackofcatfood said...

"we should receive money out of the deal, right?"
LOL! Charging politicians to make fun of them... what a brilliant thought!