Internet campaign exemption defeated
Bill targeted finance limits
WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives last night narrowly turned back an effort to exempt all Internet communication from campaign-finance regulations, dealing at least a temporary defeat to a bill that would allow unfettered political advertising -- and unlimited spending -- in the vast frontier of cyberspace.
Supporters fell short of the two-thirds vote they needed to pass the measure in the expedited fashion Republican leaders were pushing for, with 225 members voting in favor and 182 voting no. But House leaders could bring the bill up again through the normal legislative process, and yesterday's vote indicates more than enough support to pass it later in the congressional session.
Critics argued against the measure by saying that it would create a gaping loophole in the three-year-old campaign-finance reform law that banned unlimited donations to political parties, also known as ''soft money," in campaigns for Congress and the presidency.
The vote came at a time when slick, inexpensive online advertising has become a key part of races across the nation; controversial ads in the New York City mayor's race and innovative Web-based campaigns for and against ballot initiatives in California have drawn headlines. In addition, liberals and conservatives are launching aggressive cyber-campaigns over the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Under current law, the same campaign-finance laws that apply to traditional media such as print and broadcasting also apply to the Internet: Campaigns can't use unlimited donations from corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to pay for ads that promote a candidate, and all individual and corporate contributions to a candidate must be publicly reported.
But the bill would have treated Internet ads differently, allowing corporations, labor unions, and individuals to spend unlimited amounts on Internet ads supporting candidates. Since there would be no public reporting requirement, it would be impossible to know who bought the ad, according to government watchdog groups.
The bill would have kept blogs, e-mails, and websites free of restrictions on political speech, said Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, the measure's primary sponsor.
''Without this legislation, I fear that the cold, calloused, and clumsy hand of bureaucrats may stifle political speech in cyberspace," Hensarling said. ''Today, the Internet is free from FEC regulation. Clearly it should remain that way."
Under the proposal, companies or individuals could have spent as much as they wanted on Internet ads and direct e-mail messages, opening a broad new avenue for influence peddling, said Fred Wertheimer, president of the government watchdog group Democracy 21.
''It brings corrupt, soft money back into federal campaigns," Wertheimer said. ''It's an extraordinary step backwards, at a time when the public considers corruption to be a major concern."
Currently, the Federal Election Commission is working under a judge's order to draft a series of regulations for political speech and advertising on the Internet, a process that has many online commentators worried that the government will effectively censor their work by mandating political balance.
Though Republicans championed the measure, many Democrats support it as well. Both parties applaud the goal of keeping the Internet free of government interference. Forty-five Democrats voted in favor of the House measure last night. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada has sponsored a bill similar to the House version. But Reid's spokesman said yesterday that the senator wants to wait until the FEC's regulations are issued before acting.
In the Senate, however, two influential senators who led the push for the 2002 campaign-finance reform act -- Republican John McCain of Arizona, and Democrat Russell Feingold of Wisconsin -- plan to fight the so-called Online Freedom of Speech Act.
In the House yesterday, Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat, led the opposition. Meehan was one of the authors of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and he said the bill would make the ban on soft money virtually meaningless.
''It reopens the floodgates of corrupting soft money," Meehan said. ''This is no minor affair. This is a major unraveling of the law."
Internet advertising was relatively scant in last year's presidential campaign, and consisted primarily of direct fund-raising appeals. The two major parties and their presidential candidates spent a total of just $2.66 million in 2004 on ''banner" ads on websites, a fraction of what they spent on television ads in the 100 biggest media markets, according to data compiled by the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
But according to estimates provided to the FEC, the numbers skyrocket when congressional races are added in: Some $14 million was spent on political ads on the Internet last year, a 30-fold increase from 2000. With larger numbers of voters -- particularly young people -- turning to the Internet as a primary source of news, opinion, and political information, the Internet is poised to become a more powerful tool for political candidates.
Against the backdrop of potential FEC intervention, the bill's supporters have relied heavily on bloggers and website managers to help drum up support.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert yesterday used a post in his newly-launched blog to argue that the Internet free-speech bill was needed to keep the FEC from regulating political discourse in cyberspace as it does the public airwaves.
The FEC requires radio and television stations to give political candidates equal time on the airwaves, both in paid ads and free appearances such as candidates' forums.
The provision, for example, stopped TV stations from showing Ronald Reagan's movies when he ran for president.
''There's no reason to let the FEC load down political online messages with a bunch of bureaucracy and rules," wrote Hastert, an Illinois Republican. ''This bill is about all the folks out in the blogosphere. It's going to protect what you say. It keeps the hand of the federal government out of Internet speech."
Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat whose district includes Silicon Valley, said concerns about the bill's impact on campaign-finance law are overblown. The 2002 law would still ban soft money from flowing directly to candidates, regardless of whether they place ads on television, radio, print, or the Internet.
The bill is needed to protect bloggers and website managers from potential government interference, Lofgren said.
''The use of the Internet is a great democratizer," she said. ''We need to make sure that communications using the Internet is protected."
But Representative Thomas H. Allen, Democrat of Maine, said the bill invites a return to the days of unlimited, unreported spending on behalf of candidates. ''Corrupting soft money should not be part of the federal election process," Allen said.
Meehan and Representative Christopher R. Shays, Republican of Connecticut, filed an alternative bill that would protect bloggers from government regulation, but maintain the current system where Internet advertising is subject to the same limits placed on advertising in other media.
They didn't get a chance to offer that amendment because Republicans used a fast-track maneuver to race Hensarling's bill to the floor.
That maneuver prevented any amendments from being offered and allowed only 40 minutes of debate, prompting Democrats to note the irony of a bill calling for free speech being debated with a sharp limit on discourse on the floor of the House.
''It is a joke," said Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democrat. ''It's self-parody. Let's all defend free speech without having any."
Rick Klein can be reached at rklein@globe.com 