Introduction
"We're getting into the new
frontier here," declared a Federal Election Commission (FEC) spokesman
recently regarding Internet[1]
political activity (“IPA”).[2] IPA is significantly influencing the
current federal election cycle, and that influence will continue to grow.[3] So far, the Federal Election Commission
(FEC) has not defined the scope of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
(“FECA” or the “Act”) and other regulations as they apply to campaign-related
speech and political activities in Cyberspace.
This paper examines the impact of
federal campaign-finance laws on Internet political activity. First, I will define “IPA.” Next, I will outline the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. After
that, I will discuss how the Internet has removed the assumptions upon which
the FECA was based. Subsequently, I
will summarize some actual IPA situations in which the FEC interpreted the
FECA. Finally, I will conclude that a
moratorium on applying FEC rules and regulations on IPA is the appropriate
solution to the FECA problem.
Internet Political Activity
Cyberspace has given citizens a
global platform to discuss every issue under the sun. Politics is a favorite subject in news groups and list-servs,
chat rooms and bulletin boards, and, the most common form, electronic mail
(email). Another important platform is
the Internet and World Wide Web pages.[4] This paper will focus on political activity
on Internet Web sites (“IPA”).
The United States Supreme Court
has concluded that it is “no exaggeration . . . that the content on the
Internet is as diverse as human thought.”[5] Today, more than half of all adult Americans
has access to the Internet.[6] Of those Americans who visit the Internet
each week, nearly twenty-five percent seek political information.[7] That is nearly ten percent of all voters.[8]
The number of people seeking
political information on the Internet has doubled since the last presidential
election cycle, and the number grows every day.[9] There are countless sites dedicated to
politics on the Internet. There are
partisan sites[10] and sites
devoted to supplying nonpartisan[11]
political information.[12] There are candidate sites,[13]
and citizen political sites that advocate[14]
and parody.[15] Each site located in the United States is
subject to FEC oversight.
Regulating Federal Elections
FEC Chairman Scott Thomas has
said that the FECA applies to IPA.[16] “We have to try to work within the statutory
and regulatory framework we have" said Thomas.[17] The Chairman does not believe that Congress
has given him any flexibility, and that he has an "obligation to stay
within [the] existing role.”[18]
Because IPA is now operating
within the current regulatory scheme, it is important to understand how that
scheme operates. This section will
outline the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended.
I begin by tracking the
development of campaign restrictions on federal elections in the United States. After that, I examine the 1971 Act and the
1974 amendments to the Act. Next, I
review the First Amendment concerns raised by the FECA restrictions. Finally, I summarize several provisions of
the Act that are pertinent to IPA.
Overview
Regulating federal elections is
not a recent idea.[19] President Theodore Roosevelt proposed
campaign finance reforms as early as 1905, after enormous corporate
contributions to presidential campaigns came to light.[20] In 1907, President Roosevelt’s efforts
resulted in the Tillman Act, the first federal legislation that restricted
campaign financing in America.[21]
The Tillman Act was designed to
lessen “the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals and special
interest groups on the outcome of federal elections.”[22] The 1907 legislation prohibited corporations
and national banks from contributing to federal election campaigns.[23] The Tillman Act was expanded in 1910, and
again in 1911.[24] The changes required campaigns to disclose
the sources of their financing.[25] Throughout the years, Congress enacted a
hodgepodge of additional modest campaign finance laws.[26]
The 1960 Presidential race
between Nixon and Kennedy fundamentally changed the way elections were
conducted in America.[27] That election ushered in the television era
and, with it, the need for an ever-increasing campaign war chest to pay for the
television advertising time.[28]
Federal election campaigns
increasingly focused their attention on television advertising.[29] Because there are a limited number of time
slots and candidates vie with all other advertisers for the most effective time
slots, the price of campaigns skyrocketed.[30]
The
Federal Election Campaign Act
The FECA was a congressional
response to the perception that the increase need for money, brought along an
increase in the corruptive influence of the contributors. The Act merged all existing
campaign-financing regulations into a single act.[31] The Act also required federal candidates,
political parties and political action committees (“PACs”) to disclose more
information than ever before about contributions to campaigns for the
Presidency and Vice Presidency, the United States Senate and the United States
House of Representatives.[32]
The FECA was amended in 1974
after questions were raised about financial abuses in the 1972 presidential
campaign.[33] The 1974 amendments set limits on
contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs and limited
expenditures used in support of candidates.[34] In addition, the Act established the Federal
Election Commission (“FEC”), an independent agency charged with the
responsibility of enforcing and administering the FECA.[35] The Act, as amended, was wide-ranging and
encompassed “all phases of and all participants in the election process.”[36]
First
Amendment Concerns
Shortly after the 1974
amendments, the Act’s constitutionality was challenged in the United States
Supreme Court in the landmark case Buckley
v. Valeo.[37] The plaintiffs[38]
asserted, among other things,[39]
that the Act violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech because
“limiting the use of money for political purposes constitutes a restriction on
communication . . . since virtually all meaningful political communications in
the modern setting involve the expenditure of money.”[40]
The Buckley court said:
The
Act's contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of the most
fundamental First Amendment activities.
Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of
candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established
by our Constitution. The First
Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order
"to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of
political and social changes desired by the people."[41]
The Buckley
court stuck down the Act's provisions limiting a candidate’s campaign
expenditures, because those provisions placed substantial restrictions on the
ability of candidates, citizens and PACs to engage in protected political
expression.[42] Therefore, the court said, limiting
expenditures violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.[43]
Provisions
of the Federal Election Campaign Act
While the court struck down
several provisions of the FECA, many provisions survived.[44] The court found that the contribution and
disclosure provisions were appropriate legislative weapons against “the reality
or appearance of corruption,”[45]
and, therefore, survived the strict scrutiny of the court.[46] When examining IPA, several provisions of
the FECA are pertinent.
First I will review the limits
the FECA places on campaign contributions.
Next, I will set out contributions and expenditures that are prohibited
in federal elections. After that, I
list the Act’s disclosure requirements.
Finally, I will define “independent expenditure.”
Contribution Limits
The Act limits contributions by
individuals and groups to candidates,[47]
party committees and PACs.[48] The chart reproduced below is published by
the FEC and outlines the limits that apply to federal election participants.[49]
Contributions
are not limited to cash.[50] Section 431(8) of the Act defines the term
“contribution'' broadly to include “any gift, subscription, loan, advance or
deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of
influencing any election for Federal office.''[51] In addition, a “contribution” also includes
“the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another
person which are rendered to a political committee without charge for any
purpose.”[52]
FEC regulations
further define “any thing of value” to include any “in-kind” contribution and
furnishing goods or services without charge as a covered expenditure.[53]
Contributions
do not include, however, “the value of
services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on
behalf of a candidate or political committee.”[54]
Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures
In addition to limiting
contributions by individuals, groups and committees, the FECA prohibits
corporations, labor organizations, federal government contractors and foreign
nationals from making any contributions and expenditures to influence federal
elections.[55] The Act also prohibits individuals from
making contributions in another person's name and restricts cash contributions
to amounts less than $100.[56]
Disclosure Requirements:
Candidates, party committees and
PACs are required to file quarterly reports.[57] The reports must disclose the money they
raised and spent, and generally identify the source of the contributions.[58] In addition, candidates must disclose and
attribute contributions from PACs and party committees.[59] The records must also include the name and
address of everyone making a contribution in excess of $10, along with the date
and amount of the contribution.[60] If a person’s contributions are more than
$200, the citizen’s occupation and principal place of business must also be
included.
Independent Expenditures
The most important provision in
the FECA, as applied to individual citizens on the Internet, is the provision
defining independent political expenditures.[61] Although the Act does not limit independent
expenditures, the FECA classifies "expenditures made by any person in
cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of,
a candidate, his authorized political committees, or their agents" as
contributions.[62]
Even if a citizen does not act
“in concert” with a candidate, if an individual makes independent expenditures
totaling more than $250 in a calendar year that “expressly advocat[s] the election
or defeat of a clearly identified [federal] candidate” the citizen must file
disclosure reports with the FEC.[63]
In addition, the citizen must
include a disclaimer with any communication that “clearly states the name of
the person who paid for the communication and state that it is not authorized
by any candidate or the candidate's committee.”[64]
If the individual spends more than $1000, that citizen has to register as a PAC
and adhere to all applicable disclosure requirements.[65]
The FECA was enacted because
Congress believed that if campaign contributions and expenditures were
controlled, so too would corruption.[66]
The Buckley Court recognized that
“the primary interest served by the limitations . . . is the prevention of
corruption and the appearance of corruption spawned by the real or imagined
coercive influence of large financial contributions on candidates' positions
and on their actions if elected to office.” [67]
In addition, Congress believed
that publicly disclosing a list of contributors would “discourage those who
would use money for improper purposes either before or after the election. A public armed with information about a
candidate's most generous supporters is better able to detect any post-election
special favors that may be given in return.”[68]
Applying the FECA to IPA
The Internet fundamentally alters
the underlying assumptions on which the FECA is based. The FECA is set up to monitor a campaign
finance scheme constructed around a limited, centralized and expensive media
system controlled by a handful of national participants.[69]
The Internet, on the other hand,
has an unlimited number of distribution channels, because it is, by design, a
decentralized global “network of networks.”[70] The Buckley
court equated money with speech.[71] The Internet changes that equation. A citizen may communicate with countless
individuals around the world for almost nothing.[72]
Also, a candidate may communicate with citizens without having to filter the
message through a media outlet.
IPA presents a unique problem to
regulators given the task of monitoring political activity in America. In this section I will outline the Federal
Election Commission’s attempt to set the boundaries of the FECA on the
Internet.
In order to understand the
agency’s view, it is appropriate to review FEC opinions, comments, and
notices. First, I will define what an
AO is and the measure of authority it carries.
Secondly, I will summarize several FEC advisory opinions (AO) and review
the Tweezerman Corporation matter.
Finally, I will access the most recent FEC notice of inquiry.
FEC
Advisory Opinions
An advisory opinion is a written
FEC reply to a citizen’s request for answers “concerning the application of the
Act . . . or any regulation prescribed by the Commission.”[73] The request must “set forth a specific
transaction or activity that the requesting person plans to undertake or is
presently undertaking and intends to undertake in the future.”[74] Hypothetical situations do not qualify for
an AO.[75]
The person that requested an AO,
and anyone else that “acts in good faith in accordance with that advisory
opinion shall not, as a result of any such act, be subject to any sanction
provided by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.”[76] Therefore, a review of issued advisory
opinions is a good indication of what the “state of the law” is concerning a
particular activity.
Advisory
Opinion No. (1995-9)[77]
The first AO concerning Internet
activity was a request by an independent PAC named Newtwatch.[78] Newtwatch’s mission was to "provide a
forum for publicly available information on selected public officials, most
notably Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich."[79] The PAC "exist[ed] principally as a
'virtual PAC' on the World Wide Web."[80]
Newtwatch requested an AO
concerning whether using their Web site “to distribute its communications
regarding Speaker Gingrich and to solicit contributions constitute[d] general
public political advertising.”[81] They also wanted to know if the FECA
permitted the Committee to accept contributions using credit cards, fund
transfers and other electronic means submitted direct from their Web site.[82]
To answer the first question
presented, the FEC relied on regulation 11 CFR 110.11(a)(1)(iv)(A).[83] That regulation provides that, “whenever an
unauthorized committee solicits contributions through general public political
advertising, the communication must include a disclaimer, ‘presented in a clear
and conspicuous manner,’ which clearly identifies the payor.”[84]
The FEC concluded that because
the Internet had greatly expanded, become easier to access and declined in
cost, Newtwatch’s Web Site “should be viewed as a form of general public
political advertising under 11 CFR 110.11.”[85] Therefore the site must include a qualifying
disclaimer.[86]
For the second question regarding
accepting credit cards,[87]
the FEC concluded the Act and regulations “allow lawful contributions to be
made not only by personal check, but also in other ways, including properly
documented use of contributors' credit cards.”[88] The Committee was required to maintain the
proper records “preserved and available for audit, inspection or examination by
the Commission for at least three years after the filing of the report to which
the documentation relates.”[89]
Advisory
Opinion- No. (1995-35)[90]
The next AO I will summarize
raised a question concerning presidential campaign fund raising. Lamar Alexander’s election committee,
Alexander for President, Inc., (“AFP”) used a World Wide Web site to solicit
contributions for Alexander's presidential candidacy.[91] Supporters were asked to send “personal
checks to the Treasurer of the Committee at Committee headquarters.”[92]
AFP requested an AO on whether
their campaign contributions solicited via the Internet were eligible for
matching funds from the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account.[93]
The FEC said, “the fact that the
Internet is used to convey the solicitations does not affect whether the
resulting contributions would qualify for Federal matching payments.”[94] In addition, the “Committee's solicitation,
acceptance and processing of contributions made in response to its Internet
solicitations will not differ in any material respect from the treatment of
contributions it solicits and accepts through direct mail.”[95]
The
Matter of Tweezerman Corporation[96]
The FEC also reviewed a matter
concerning Tweezerman Corporation.[97] The founder and President of the company,
Dal LaMagna, was a candidate for the United States House of Representatives in
1996.[98] The corporation maintained a site on the
World Wide Web at http://www.tweezerman.com.[99]
On the company’s home page, at
the bottom, a hyperlink brought surfers to a Web site that raised money for the
candidate.[100] The text of the hyperlink read, "Dal La
Manga, the founder and president of TWEEZERMAN, is running for the U.S.
Congress in New York."[101] The hyperlink was the only reference to Mr.
LaManga’s campaign.[102]
Mr. LaManga maintained that
hyperlinks are “critical to navigating on the Internet.” [103] In addition, the link did not have any value
“therefore the link should not be considered an in-kind contribution.”[104]
The FEC disagreed, stating
"Although the respondents are correct in stating that links between sites
are routinely used and that links make surfing the net easy, they are incorrect
in further stating that 'these links are [customarily] free of charge.[105] There is no disputing that paid advertising
and paid hyperlinks on the WWW are a very big business."[106]
Further, the Commission said that
"the mere fact that something is ordinarily provided free of charge does
not alone answer the question of whether it has value -- certainly, something
can be free of charge but still have value."[107]
Because the link had value, and a
corporation provided the link, providing the link violated 2 U.S.C. 441b(a)
which prohibits corporate contributions to federal election campaigns.[108] The FEC imposed a fine on Mr. LaManga’s
campaign for this and other violations in the amount of $16,000.[109]
Advisory
Opinion- No. (1998-22)[110]
Leo Smith designed web sites for
businesses and non-profit organizations.[111] Mr. Smith, in protest of House Republican
efforts in the impeachment hearing of President Clinton, created an Internet
Web site with the slogan "defeat Nancy Johnson.”[112] Representative Nancy Johnson was the
Republican candidate in the Sixth Congressional District of Connecticut.[113] In addition, Mr. Smith recommended that
visitors "[w]ork to elect Koskoff for Congress."[114] The site also provided a form to contribute
money or volunteer time to the Koskoff campaign and a link to the candidate’s
official web site.[115]
Mr. Smith had limited contact
with the Koskoff campaign; the campaign corrected the spelling of the
candidate’s name.[116] The site included a disclaimer “This web
site is posted by a registered Independent voter in the Sixth District. This site is not affiliated with or
supported by the official Koskoff for Congress campaign."[117]
Mr. Smith contended that because
the web site was located in a sub-directory of his company domain and he used
his own computer, “no funds were received or expended to create the Web site.”[118]
The FEC disagreed. They concluded that, given the FECA
definition of "expenditure" in 2 U.S.C. § 431(9), the site was
“something of value” and required Mr. Smith to include a proper disclaimer that
included his full name, rather than describing himself as an “Independent voter
in the Sixth District.”[119] The Commission also required Mr. Smith to
determine the value of the expenditures before they could advise which
reporting requirements were appropriate.[120]
Although the Commission did not
set a value to the site, they recommended Mr. Smith apportion the “fee to
secure the registration of domain name, the amounts [he] invested in [his]
hardware, and the utility costs to create the site.”[121]
Advisory
Opinion No. (1999-9)[122]
Bradley for President Inc. (“BFP”)
had set up a site on the World Wide Web.[123] A Prospective donor could contribute to BFP
by “filling out an electronic form and transmitting it to the Committee.”[124] BFP had set up a series of steps to ensure
that FECA provisions were followed, then BFP accepted the contribution via
credit card.[125]
BFP requested an AO about
applying the FECA to funds gathered from the Web site via credit card
contributions. BFP wanted to know if
these funds were eligible for matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching
Payment Account Act.
The Commission said “that the
current Commission regulations at 11 CFR 9034.3, which interpret 26 U.S.C. §
9034(a), explicitly state that contributions made by means of credit card
transactions cannot be matched.” However,
the Commission said that if BFP followed the process indicated, the Commission
would change the regulations in order to allow “the specific transaction or
activity set forth in your request.”
Advisory
Opinion No. (1999-17)[126]
The Governor George W. Bush for
President Exploratory Committee, Inc. ("the Committee") set up an
Internet Web Site at http://www.georgewbush.com and relied on the Internet as
much as any campaign ever has.[127] The Committee was troubled that, should the
FEC determine independent web sites and other IPA supporting the election of
Governor Bush for President are contributions, they would surpass the
contribution limits and the Committee would be denied matching funds or fined.[128]
The Committee sent a request for
AO to the FEC and presented a number of questions about IPA.[129] The request covered several areas of
inquiry:
Citizen Web Sites
¨
Must a campaign assess value for having its name
mentioned by a Web site that it does not control, and may not even know
about? How must a campaign treat a
volunteer Web site established by supporters of a campaign, but about which the
campaign may know nothing? On what
basis should the fair market value of a Web site be determined if the owner has
not placed a value on it?[130]
First the Commission made an
important declaration, “if a volunteer for the campaign chooses to prepare a
web site supporting the campaign using his or her personal property at home,
i.e., a home computer, that action would not be a contribution.”[131]
In addition, the Commission said
that Web sites that the Committee is unaware of, also would not be considered
contributions to the Committee.[132] The Committee “does not have an obligation
to search the web to discover the existence of pro-Bush activity.”[133]
Links
¨
How should a campaign assess the value of a link
between two Web sites?[134]
Next, the Commission addressed
the question about links between Web Sites.[135] The Commission said, “[p]roviding a link to
web sites operated by the Committee would be considered a service and something
of value to the campaign and could, under certain circumstances, meet the
definition of ‘contribution’ under the Act and Commission regulations.”[136] If, however, the web page providing the link
would not normally charge for such a link, the link would not be considered a
contribution under the FECA.[137] On the other hand,
If
an owner of a web site would normally charge for a link to another site and
chooses not to charge the Committee, or charges the Committee less than a
similarly situated nonpolitical organization or entity, the provision of a link
would be treated as a contribution to the campaign.[138]
Further, the Commission clarified
its position concerning links provided by Web sites that normally do charge and
corporations that are not permitted to contribute to campaigns.[139] “If the links are not established or
maintained at the request or suggestion of, or in cooperation, consultation or
concert with the Bush campaign, then the Bush campaign has no obligation to
request removal of the links and no reporting obligations in regard to them.”[140]
Vendor issues
¨
May a campaign provide a link to a vendor selling
materials about its candidate? If it
may, must it place a value on that link?
What are the reporting obligations?
May a vendor selling a candidate's materials provide a link to the
candidate's Web site? What obligations
does the campaign have under the Federal Election Campaign Act in that
situation? May a campaign pay a vendor
for a link to the campaign's Web site?
How does it determine the value of that link? What, if any, disclaimers are required?[141]
The Commission answered questions
about vendor sites by referring to answers of links and citizen sites.[142] If the Committee is unaware of, or not
connected to the vendors, the “activities of the vendors do not produce a reporting
obligation for the Committee.”[143]
Internet polls
¨
Do Internet polls fall under the news media exception
no matter what the source? Does the
dissemination of such poll results cause a reportable event? Is the Campaign Act triggered if a campaign
uses the Internet to urge its supporters to vote in a given poll? If yes, how does the campaign value that
activity?[144]
Next, the Committee’s questions
turn to Internet polling and whether the media exception applies.[145] “The Commission generally notes that only
the web sites operated by entities whose activities fulfill the requirements of
the ‘press exemption’ could receive the benefit of 2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)(i).”[146] Therefore, the Committee can not rely on the
media exception to any of their activity.[147]
E-mail
¨
In the case of a volunteer who solicits associates to
contribute to a campaign, how does a campaign determine the fair market value
of the use of e-mail? Must the campaign
report such activity? How would it
value the activity? Must it be counted
against the volunteer's contribution limit?[148]
¨
If the FEC determines that there is no reportable value
to sending an e-mail, what is the result if the volunteer uses an e-mail system
at his or her place of business? Is
this a corporate contribution?[149]
Next, the Commission addressed
the question about e-mail.[150] The Commission applied the same analysis as
they did to citizen Web Sites.[151] If volunteers perform the activity, than the
activity is not attributable to the Committee.[152] In addition, “[t]he contribution limit of
the volunteer would not be affected by this activity.”[153]
The remaining questions that The
Governor George W. Bush for President Exploratory Committee, Inc. raised would
have to wait for another day. An AO is
only appropriate “with respect to a specific transaction or activity by the
person." Because many of the
questions posed by the Committee were hypothetical or applied to some third
persons, the Commission said, “any further comment on the activity . . . would
not be an appropriate subject for an advisory opinion.”
Notice
of Inquiry
Recently, the FEC issued a
"notice of inquiry" (“NOI”) entitled Use of the Internet for Campaign
Activity, seeking public input into the rule-making process.[154] The NOI states that "[t]he [FEC] is
conducting this review in order to assess the applicability of the Federal
Election Campaign Act and the Commission's current regulations to campaign
activity conducted using [the Internet]."
The NOI asks the "threshold question," should IPA "be
treated as a contribution or an expenditure" under existing laws?[155]
FEC Commissioner David Mason
proposed the NOI, and raised several additional questions, including:[156]
¨
Does the media exemption, which allows newspapers to
make endorsements without their counting as a contribution, apply to Internet
"magazines"? Can some
Internet sites be considered "periodical publications"? Would "list serves" or regular
e-mails qualify as periodical publications?[157]
¨
How should political committees report Internet
expenditures? Multi-candidate committees
may host Web sites that include candidate-specific materials. Should the
multi-candidate committee be required to calculate the value of information
about a specific candidate to be reported as a contribution?[158]
¨
Should links to candidate or political committee
Internet sites be treated as campaign expenditures in and of themselves, or are
such links simply the equivalent of mailing addresses or phone numbers?[159]
¨
Should the commission regulate the placement of banners
("electronic bumper stickers") on non-campaign Web sites? Since the marginal cost of adding such a
banner to a Web site is near zero, what is its value for Federal Election
Campaign Act purposes?[160]
¨
How should Internet-based organizations be treated for
purposes of the FEC's membership rules?[161]
¨
Should hosts of Internet discussion sites be held
liable for postings (for instance, express advocacy) by persons participating
in the discussion?
Another FEC Commissioner, Karl
Sandstrom, also addressed the IPA issue in a guest column in the September 5,
1999 edition of The Washington Post.[162] Commission Sandstrom concluded that the
Internet "is beyond the capabilities of the FEC to be the Web
police." Referring to FEC advisory
opinion’s and other FEC comments about the Internet, Commissioner Sandstrom
said that “[t]he FEC must provide answers, but those answers will prove
inadequate if it fails to recognize the uniqueness of the Internet.”
He highlighted a considerable
problem for proposed regulation of IPA.
The
fact that the Internet knows no borders also presents a problem for the FEC.
Foreign web sites that expressly advocate election results are available to our
citizens but beyond our regulatory reach.
Should these persons enjoy a broader right to publish than their
American readers? I do not believe
anyone would seriously argue that we should adopt the Chinese government's
policy of blocking offensive web sites.
The FEC seeks
public input about IPA. The
commissioners, however, can not agree as to the appropriate action.
Conclusion
The Internet has ushered in a new
era in politics. The old rules just do
not apply to this new medium. "It's like applying the rules of the road
that existed for the pony express to space travel."[163] So far there are more questions than
answers. In this section, I will argue
that the FECA should not be applied to IPA.
First I will reveal that there only two options: impose the FECA on IPA,
or do not. After I conclude that the
best option is not to apply the FECA to IPA, I propose a moratorium. Next, I explain that the moratorium is in
line with the goals and purpose of FECA.
Finally, I conclude that the Internet is unique, and should be exempt
from old, outdated laws.
The Chairman of the FEC has said
that FECA rules and FEC regulations apply to the Internet, just as they do to
every other medium.[164] Don Simon, vice president of Common Cause, a
leading group advocating campaign-finance reform, believes the Internet
shouldn't be exempt from federal campaign laws.
House Majority Whip Tom Delay, on
the other hand, proposed legislation that would prevent the FEC from regulating
any campaign-related Internet activity except that related to online
fundraising from FEC rules.[165] Lamar Alexander believes, “[t]he Internet
may be the last, best hope for democratizing the presidential nomination
process."[166]
The views are opposing; the FECA
should apply to IPA or does not apply.
So far the FEC has had a difficult time applying the antiquated FECA to
the high technology Internet. The
advisory opinions and other analysis outlined in this paper demonstrate that
simple issues (Can I link to a candidate’s Web site) become very complicated
when the FECA is applied. My position
is that the FECA should not apply to Internet political activity.
This is not the only area in
which the Internet has been beyond the laws.
State taxes are a good example.
When it became clear that state imposed taxes had the potential to
seriously interrupt commerce on the Internet, Congress acted quickly and
imposed a three-year moratorium.[167]
If e-commerce should be so
important as to necessitate a moratorium, how much more so are freedom and the
Bill of Rights? If left to the FEC, the
freedoms found on the Internet will slowly be evaporated. After all, the FEC is an agency interested
in setting out new turf, and thereby increasing its power and authority.[168] The Commission may make small gestures of
flexibility,[169] but they
are bound to apply the FECA as written.[170]
If “the primary interest served
by” the FECA “is the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption
spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial
contributions on candidates,”[171]
then the best way to remove that corruption is to eliminate the influence of
large financial contributors. And the
best way to eliminate the influence of large financial contributor’s is by
establishing a free flow of information about the campaign and the
candidate.
Therefore allowing the free flow
of information removes the primary interest of the FECA, causing the FECA to
fail under strict scrutiny of the court.
IPA is not the kind of activity that the United States Supreme Court
would allow the FECA to restrict.[172] If the FECA places restrictions on speech,
thereby limiting the free flow of information, the intent of the Act is
hindered rather than helped.
The amount of political activity
on the Internet is too great for an agency to police. Therefore, enforcement will be selective, which would also be
contrary to the professed goal.[173] Therefore, the only logical solution to this
problem is for Congress to impose a moratorium on applying FEC rules and
regulations on IPA. Any lessor action
risks the free flow of information upon which the Internet, and political
thought, flourishes.
[1] I adopted
the United States Supreme Court definition of “Internet” as revealed in Reno v. ACLU :
“The Internet is an international network of
interconnected computers. It is the
outgrowth of what began in 1969 as a
military program called "ARPANET," which was designed to
enable computers operated by the military, defense contractors, and
universities conducting defense-related research to communicate with one
another by redundant channels even if some portions of the network were damaged
in a war. While the ARPANET no longer exists, it provided an example for the
development of a number of civilian networks that, eventually linking with each
other, now enable tens of millions of people to communicate with one another
and to access vast amounts of information from around the world. The Internet
is “a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication."
Reno v. ACLU
521 U.S. 844, 849 - 850 (1997).
[2] See, FEC
to offer political Internet rules, The Associated Press (Oct. 28, 1999),
(quoting FEC spokesman Ron Harris) (visited Dec. 8, 1999) <
http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1999/10/28fecinternet.asp>.
[3] See, Use
of the Internet for Campaign Activity, Notice of inquiry and request for
comments. (FEC Notice 1999—24).
[4] “A Web page
is an Internet ‘document’ that can be accessed by Internet users with an HTML
browser” and may include audio, animation, video, images, and hyperlinks to
other documents.” See, All About HTML: Starting
With The Basics, (visited Dec. 10, 1999)
<http://www.webdeveloper.com/html/beginners_html.html>.
[5] Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 852 (1997).
[6] See, Howard Fineman, Pressing the Flesh Online, Newsweek
Sept. 1999.
[7] See, Adam Clayton Powell III, Poll: A tenth of voters getting candidate
info online, The Freedom Forum on-line (Dec. 7, 1999) <
http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1999/12/7voters.asp> (quoting an
October 1999 George Washington University poll).
[10] For
example, The Republican National Committee’s site at http://www.rnc.org; the
Democrat National Committee at http://www.domocrat.org; The Reform Party at
http://www.reformparty.com. In
addition, most every state, county organizations have a site on the World Wide
Web as do many local organizations.
[11] For example
The League of Women Voters site at http://www.lwv.org; The Center for
Responsive Politics at http://www.opensecrets.org.
[12] See, Cyberpolitics, (visited Dec. 6,
1999) <http://www.bettercampaigns.org/documents/cyber.HTM>
[13] For
example, Orrin Hatch’s site at http://www.orrinhatch.org; Alan Keys at
http://www.keys200.org; George W. Bush at http://www.georgewbush.com; Steve
Forbes at http://www.forbes2000.com; John McCain at http://www.mccain2000.com;
Gary Bauer http://www.bauer2k.com; Al Gore at http://www.algore2000.com; and,
Bill Bradley at http://www.billbradley.com.
[14] Too many
sites to list just a few here.
[15] For
example, http://www.algore.com; http://www.gwbush.com; http://www.bore2000.com;
http://www.hillary2000.com
[16] See, Amy
Keller, FEC Moving Closer to Internet
Campaign Regulations, Roll Call (Oct. 28, 1999).
[19] See, The FEC and the Federal Campaign
Finance Law, (visited Dec. 4, 1999)
<http://www.fec.gov/pages/fecfeca.htm>.
See also, Amanda S. La Forge, The Toothless Tiger - Structural, Political And Legal Barriers To
Effective FEC Enforcement: An Overview And Recommendations, 10 Admin. L.J.
Am. U. 351 (1996).
[22] Id. at Historical Background.
[23] See, Amanda S. La Forge, The Toothless Tiger - Structural, Political And Legal Barriers
To Effective FEC Enforcement: An Overview And Recommendations, 10 Admin.
L.J. Am. U. 351, 352 (1996).
[26] See, supra, note 4 at 352.
[27] Don't Squelch Internet Politics, St.
Petersburg Times (Sept. 19, 1999).
[29] supra. note
4 at 352.
[31] See, The FEC and the Federal Campaign
Finance Law, (visited Dec. 4, 1999)
<http://www.fec.gov/pages/fecfeca.htm>.
[32] 2 U.S.C.
§ 431 et seq.
[33] supra. note
4 at 352 (Read this as “Watergate”).
[36] See, Buckley
v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 13 (1976).
[38] “Plaintiffs
included a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, a United States
Senator who is a candidate for re-election, a potential contributor, the Committee for a Constitutional Presidency --
McCarthy '76, the Conservative Party of the State of New York, the Mississippi
Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, the New York Civil Liberties Union,
Inc., the American Conservative Union, the Conservative Victory Fund, and Human
Events, Inc.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 7 (1976).
[39] The
plaintiffs also asserted that the reporting and disclosure provisions impinged
their right to freedom of association and the federal subsidy provisions of
Subtitle H violated the General Welfare Clause, and inconsistent with the 1st
and 5th Amendments. Id. at 17.
[41] Id. at 21 (quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)).
[45] Id. at 28. See also, U.S. Const. amend. I.
[46] The court
described the scrutiny as “exacting”, “strict” and “closest.” See,
supra. note 35.
[47] The term
“Candidate” refers to Candidate(s) and Candidate Committee(s).
[48] See generally, 2 U.S.C. 431(8) (1999).
[49] The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law,
Published Aug. 1996 (visited Dec. 6, 1999) <http://www.fec.gov/pages/fecfeca.htm>
[50] See generally, 2 U.S.C. 431(8) (1999).
[51] 2 U.S.C.
431(8)(A)(i) (1999).
[52] 2 U.S.C.
431(8)(A)(ii) (1999).
[53] 11 CFR
100.8(a)(1)(iv)(A).
[54] 2 U.S.C.
431(8)(B)(i) (1999).
[55]
Corporations and labor organizations may establish PACs which are able to raise
voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use them to
support federal candidates and political committees. See the Campaign Guide for
Corporations and Labor Organizations, available in PDF form at http://www.fec.gov/pages/citnlist.htm. See
also, Square Pegs and Round
Holes: Applying the Campaign Finance
Law to the Internet -- Risks to Free Expression and Democratic Values, note
11 (Oct. 1999) <http://www.cdt.org/speech/political/financereport.shtm>.
[56] 2 USCS
§ 441b (1999).
[57] 2 U.S.C.
434 (1999), 11 CFR Part 104.
[61] 2 U.S.C.
434 (17) (1999). See also, What is an
Independent Expenditure (visited Dec. 10, 1999).
<http://www.fec.gov/pages/indexp.htm#anchor55092>
[63] 2 U.S.C.
§ 441d (1999), 11 CFR 110.11.
[64] 2 U.S.C. §
441d (1999).; See also, 11 CFR
109.3, 110.11(a)(1) and 110.11(a)(5).
[66] See generally, Bradley A. Smith, Campaign Finance Reform: The General
Landscape: The Sirens' Song: Campaign Finance Regulation And The First Amendment,
6 J.L. & Pol'y 1 (1997).
[67] supra. note 52 at 25.
[69] See, Square
Pegs and Round Holes: Applying the
Campaign Finance Law to the Internet -- Risks to Free Expression and Democratic
Values, (Oct. 1999)
<http://www.cdt.org/speech/political/financereport.shtm>.
[71] supra. note 23 at 356.
[72] I say
almost nothing because one can get free access to the Internet at public
libraries, schools and other public institutions. In addition, Lyco.com is now offering free Internet access to
anyone with a computer, a modem and a phone-line. Once on-line, there are free email services, bulletin boards,
listservs and newsgroups that connect a person to countless others in
Cyberspace. If you are using your own
computer, your cost of access is limited to the marginal cost of your computer
and the electric used to operate the machine.
If you are connected at a public institution, your cost is limited to
the energy it takes to get to the institution.
[73] 11 C.F.R. §
112.1(a) (1999).
[74] 11 C.F.R. §
112.1(b) (1999).
[77] Federal
Election Commission, Advisory Opinion 1995-9, April 21, 1995.
[78] I claim
that this is the “first” AO because this is the earliest dated AO with the term
“Internet or web or cyber.”
[79] Federal
Election Commission, Advisory Opinion 1995-9, April 21, 1995.
[81] See, Id. See also, 11 CFR 110.11(a)(1); 2 U.S.C.
§ 441d
[82] Federal
Election Commission, Advisory Opinion 1995-9, April 21, 1995.
[83] Federal
Election Commission, Advisory Opinion 1995-9, April 21, 1995.
[87] “Credit
Card” refers to credit card, debit card, or other electronic payment system.
[88] Federal
Election Commission, Advisory Opinion 1995-9, April 21, 1995.
[89] See, Advisory Opinion (1995-9). See
also, 11 CFR 110.11..
[90] Federal
Election Commission, Advisory Opinion 1995-9, Sept. 22, 1995.
[92] At the time
of this AO Matching funds were only available for funds issued “with a written
instrument which identifies the person making the contribution by full name and
mailing address.” i.e. a personal check.
Id.
[93] AFP did not
accept credit card contributions, even though the Commission allowed the
practice in AO (1995-9). The Commission
said that AFP could collect funds that way too. However, funds collected via credit cards or other electronic
means did not qualify for matching funds from the Presidential Primary Matching
Payment Account. Id.
[96] Federal
Election Commission, Counsel's Report, Matter Under Review 4340.
[97] Federal
Election Commission, Counsel's Report, Matter Under Review 4340.
[98] Amy Keller,
Experts Wonder About FEC's Internet Savvy
Regulating Web Is A
Challenge For Watchdog Agency, Roll
Call (May 6, 1999).
[99] The
company’s Web site is still located at this address (visited Dec. 10, 1999)
<http://www.tweezerman.com>.
[109] The FEC
did not apportion the fine per violation.
See, supra. note 52 at IV. The
FEC's Approach to Online Activities: B. Linking.
[110] Federal
Election Commission, Advisory Opinion 1998-22 November 20, 1998
[122] Federal
Election Commission, Advisory Opinion 1999-9, June 10, 1999.
[125]
The form will required prospective donors to provide detailed information
including, among other things:
* the
contributor's name
* the
contributor's name as it appears on the card;
* the billing
address on record with the issuer of the credit or debit card;
* the credit or
debit card number;
* the expiration
date of the card;
* the
contributor's residential address; and
* the amount of
the contribution,
Id.
[126] Federal
Election Commission, Advisory Opinion 1999-17, Nov. 10, 1999.
[127] See, Frank
Bruni, Bush Posts List of Campaign Donors
on Web Site, New York Times (Sept. 10, 1999).
[128] See, Rebecca Fairley Raney, Campaign Regulators Clear Up Status of
Political 'Fan Sites', The New York Times (Nov. 11, 1999).
[129] See, Federal Election Commission,
Advisory Opinion 1999-17, Nov. 10, 1999.
[131] Federal
Election Commission, Advisory Opinion 1999-17, Nov. 10, 1999. (Further, the ongoing related costs (such as maintaining Internet
service with a provider) that are part of the upkeep of a home-run web site
would also fall into this exception. The Commission notes that the cost to
register the domain name for a web site established by a volunteer to support
Mr. Bush's candidacy would also be covered by this exception. In short, there would also be no reporting
obligation that would attach to the activity.).
[149] Id.
See also, Questions Before the FEC, The New York Times (Sept. 8, 1999) (in
his request for an advisory opinion, Benjamin L. Ginsberg, lawyer for the
Presidential campaign of George W. Bush, raised these questions).
[154] See, supra.
note 3.
[155] See, supra.
note 3.
[156] See, supra.
note 148.
[162] Karl
Sandstrom, When election laws collide
with Internet, The Washington Post (Sept. 5, 1999).
[163] Governor
Lamar Alexander, Former Presidential Candidate. See, Phillip Taylor, Campaign-finance debate spills onto the Web,
(visited Dec. 11, 1999)
<http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1999/10/22camfininternet.asp>
[164] See, Amy
Keller, FEC Moving Closer to Internet
Campaign Regulations, Roll Call (Oct. 28, 1999)
[165] See, DeLay Plans To Revive Internet
Amendment, National Journal's CongressDaily (Sept. 16, 1999).
[166] Phillip
Taylor, Campaign-finance debate spills
onto the Web, (Oct. 22, 1999)
<http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1999/10/22camfininternet.asp>
[167] See,
Internet Tax Moratorium, Taxbook 98 (visited Dec. 10, 1999)
<http://www.dtonline.com/taxbook/chap4.htm>
[168] See, Jonathan R. Macey, Administrative
Agency Obsolescence and Interest Group Formation: A Case Study of the Sec At
Sixty, 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 909, 924 (1994).
[169] For
example, the volunteer exception is really not very useful to the majority of
Internet Web site owners, because they are in no way connected with the
campaigns and therefore would not fall under the exception and must determine
if they have to file with the FEC and / or provide disclaimers.
[171] In Buckley
he court said the only reason the limits on contributions is because it
worked to further the goal of “corruption and the appearance of corruption”.
[172] George W.
Bush’s campaign posts every contribution on their web site for all to see. There are also sites where all public
campaign documents can be searched and analyze. See,
Opensecrets.org. (visited Dec. 10, 1999) <http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/history/history2.html>.
[173] See, Terry M. Neal ,Satirical Web Site Poses Political Test; Facing Legal Action From Bush,
Creator Cites U.S. Tradition of Parody, The Washington Post (Nov. 29, 1999)
(arguing that Bush used the FEC to go after the parody author for political
reasons, selective enforcement).