Way back in November I told you about the so-called Online Freedom of Speech Act, which would grant an exemption from campaign finance laws for speech on the Internet. At the time, the bill failed to gain a two-thirds majority vote needed to fast-track the bill, and the House is set to reconsider it next week. In light of that, the Center for Democracy and Technology has offered a very complex amendment to the very simple bill.

H.R. 1606, as it was, simply stated that “Such term shall not include communications over the Internet,” that term being “Public communication,” meaning “a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising,” from 2 USC 431(22).

Some people are concerned that this would give political candidates carte blanche to spend as much as they wanted to on Internet campaigns, and perhaps it will. So CDT made a proposal (PDF) which would make things a lot more complex.

Both the CDT and the Hensarling proposals would build on the FEC’s attempt to give bloggers the autonomy that journalists enjoy. However, in contrast to Hensarling’s sweeping exemption for all Internet communication, the CDT-backed bill provides a more structured regulatory scheme, carving out specific types of online political communication for regulation, such as buying online ad space, certain blogs and websites dedicated to explicitly campaigning for candidates, and similar Internet messages disseminated by political committees.

Under the CDT proposal, FEC regulations would kick in once expenditures reach certain monetary ceilings. The proposed rules would allow an individual to spend up to $5,000 of his or her own funds to buy political ads on websites, or to launch a website dedicated to promoting a candidate or attacking opponents, without having to file a report with the FEC or attach a disclaimer revealing the individual’s identity. A group of friends could spend up to $10,000 to launch a online media campaign endorsing a candidate without having to register as a “political committee,” as they would for comparable offline political activities. — The NewStandard

But, hey, I don’t have to worry about this. At least not this election cycle. The article continues, explaining why:

Wisconsin-based blogger Michael Hampton favored the broad language of the Hensarling bill over the more targeted CDT proposal. Though his blog, Homeland Stupidity, runs on $1,000 per year and would likely be untouched by reporting regulations for online electioneering, he views any attempt to regulate web-based political activity as a threat to bloggers’ ability to air their views freely.

A self-described libertarian whose blog “covers almost anything the government does which might be considered stupid,” Hampton argued: “Attempts to regulate the speech of bloggers are tantamount to regulating theNew York Times’ editorial and op-ed pages, and as such, should be vigorously opposed.” — Ibid.

Yup, that’s yours truly.

And after carefully reconsidering the issue, I am still of the opinion that the only Internet campaign finance reform we need is for the Federal Election Commission to stay away from the Internet entirely. The CDT proposal is going to do the same thing to the Internet as existing campaign finance laws do: make it harder for third parties to get their message out. And since one third party has the most important message few people are hearing, it’s absolutely vital that every possible avenue for communicating that message be protected.