Feds to Monitor Politics on Internet?

Looks that way: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041013/D85MHF6G0.html

With political fund raising, campaign advertising and organizing taking place in full swing over the Internet, it may just be a matter of time before the Federal Election Commission joins the action. Well, that time may be now.
A recent federal court ruling says the FEC must extend some of the nation's new campaign finance and spending limits to political activity on the Internet.Long reluctant to step into online political activity, the agency is considering whether to appeal.
But vice chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said the Internet may prove to be an unavoidable area for the six-member commission, regardless of what happens with the ruling.
"I don't think anybody here wants to impede the free flow of information over the Internet," Weintraub said. "The question then is, where do you draw the line?"

If that doesn't seem to be a strange thing to say it is probably due to the horrible McCain-Feingold Bill that actually put limits on the most important type of speech we could have: Political.

So now the FEC has authority to go around and see who is spending what and what is being said and when it is said. This doesn't bother many people - including the Supreme Court - that anyone with a political opinion can no longer do what they may.

As Scalia correctly stated in his opinion:

This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which,within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), tobacco advertising, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001), dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001),and sexually explicit cable programming, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000), would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about.

Well, the Justice might have more to gripe about because now we have people who feel 'obliged' to concern themselves with what happens on the internet. This was probably just a matter of time as the article states, but it does not make it any more appealing or acceptable.

Although they will not come after me individually, will they come after blogspot for permitting all this political discussion, or do they fall under some sort of loophole? Will the shut down the AARP website if they mention anything related to politics? How about the NRA?

Where do you draw the line she asks as if she she is open to discussion. The FEC will draw the line where they see fit and anyone who might have any audible voice could be silenced. If there is one thing I totally disagree with Washington on; and I say this because McCain-Feingold was a bipartisan effort to limit free speech in relation to elected members of the government.

In another quoting Max Fose, a Republican gets it all wrong:

Max Fose, a Republican Internet consultant who helped Arizona Sen. John McCain, a sponsor of the new campaign finance law, raise millions of dollars online for his 2000 presidential bid, is wary of the judge's ruling.

"Whenever there's something new and emerging and it's still developing, to place restrictions on it I think is going to hurt how political candidates and elected officials look to use the Internet, to not only be elected but look to get voters involved," Fose said.
It has nothing to do with new and emerging, or old and sinking; it has to do with permitting people to say, write, or otherwise communicate opinions of political matters. There is nothing more important than political discourse because politics and the laws created by politicians affect us in every way.

They regulate the speed at which you drive, to the amount of money you get from your work, from the funding for police and fire to what goes on with our schools, from how we treat those who wish us harm to where we send our troops. All these things and so much more are on the line and to not be able to speak openly and freely in every form of communication readily available is a limitation that is completely unacceptable.

The best criticism Fose could come up with is not whether or not the substance of the whole idea to regulate is correct, for he obviously feels it is a proper role of the government to limit how much people may criticism members therein, he is only concerned about the growth of the internet in general as it not the right time for this kind of regulation.

There is no right time for this kind of regulation.