Today's Seattle Times reports on moves by the state Public Disclosure Commission to consider new regulations for the Internet. Reporter Alex Fryer captured my view perfectly with this quote:
"I don't see any need [for state rules]," Sharkansky said. "There's nothing unique about the Internet that's not covered in regulation for other media. It's chasing ghosts."I'm similarly quoted on KOMO radio today. I participated in a PDC panel discussion on the topic last month. Fortunately, most of the Commissioners seemed concerned about impositions on free speech and seemed inclined to move slowly and cautiously on new Internet regulations. My advice to the PDC: stop chasing imaginary problems with the Internet, and fix actual flaws in campaign regulation, e.g. make out-of-state political committees subject to the same disclosure requirements as in-state committees. (More info on the PDC panel here. The discussion is on TVW online here. The Olympian's Brad Shannon had a write-up here) Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 03, 2007 08:27 AM | Email This
All it takes is a sympathetic judge, and there appear to be plenty of those.
Posted by: deadwood on September 3, 2007 09:10 AMBut the way the internet works could force more of this information to be _stored_ out in the public view. Before you go through the whole FOIA business. Minutes of the meeting on xx/xx/2007? Stored publically.
IOW: Push the other damn way.
Posted by: Al on September 3, 2007 10:49 AMWhile I'm encouraged at Comissioner Nolan's comment "Are we going to regulate what bloggers say? No. We are not interested in regulating speech.", the PDC will need to tread carefully here if they take action.
We walked through examples where bloggers receive income from ads or other related work and encouraged them to follow the FEC standards where only reportable activity is on the candidate's side paying to run ads or hire bloggers.
*If* the PDC decides to take action, assistant director Doug Ellis outlined the following schedule for action in the 2008 cycle:
- 9/27 meeting: Commissioners would need to give general guidelines and direction to staff for any proposal
- 10/24 meeting: Commissioners would need to consider any draft language
- 12/19 meeting: Any draft language would need to go the code revisor's office.
- January 2008: Formal approval and action.
While I'm encouraged at Comissioner Nolan's comment "Are we going to regulate what bloggers say? No. We are not interested in regulating speech.", the PDC will need to tread carefully here if they take action.
We walked through examples where bloggers receive income from ads or other related work and encouraged them to follow the FEC standards where only reportable activity is on the candidate's side paying to run ads or hire bloggers.
*If* the PDC decides to take action, assistant director Doug Ellis outlined the following schedule for action in the 2008 cycle:
- 9/27 meeting: Commissioners would need to give general guidelines and direction to staff for any proposal
- 10/24 meeting: Commissioners would need to consider any draft language
- 12/19 meeting: Any draft language would need to go the code revisor's office.
- January 2008: Formal approval and action.
Go for it PDC
Posted by: GS on September 3, 2007 01:01 PMThe democrats still are not ordered to make past reports and their "probation" was for one year.
The PDC makes me sick. I think the D stands for Democrat.
To the subject at hand, all I can say is LOOK OUT!
Posted by: Ken Howard on September 3, 2007 02:29 PMOf course, unlike the politicos you love slamming, this issue actually directly affects you and (potentially) your income.
Would it be better then to change your slogan to "Sound and quite possibly paid-for commentary..."?
An observer could infer that you must be interested in hiding something...by taking the stand you did.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on September 3, 2007 04:00 PMDisclosure and fairness were products of the 1970s when 3 television networks ruled the airwaves -- no cable, no internet, no video -- no nuttin'!
The Internet is also public -- but it has infinite channels...infinite bandwidth...it can host each and every opinion down to that of a single person -- which is what a blog is.
There is no need for that person to disclose anything, because blogs do not monopolize the Internet in any way shape or form. They can be not read. Or other blogs can be read. Or the person can write his or her own blog.
What's next? Do I have to supply a curriculum vitae for making a Comment?
No Stephen...this is probably just backlash for your stand on the Elections Director. Expect more of it...
Posted by: John Bailo on September 3, 2007 08:54 PMIf there is more need for openness, then apply it to everyone, not just to the Internet.
Also, you are drawing incorrect conclusions about his defense of openness, since that defense is about openness in government, and Sound Politics is not a government web site.
Posted by: pudge on September 3, 2007 09:29 PMLooks like Stefan could be taking money from people to run his site and he doesn't want to admit it.
Posted by: Tom Smith on September 4, 2007 10:35 AM1. My last posting was in support of Stefan's position (about Seattle Times making stuff up).
2. Stefan's apparent role is to counter everything that he doesn't agree with in the press. Doesn't it make sense that someone who does the same role on Stefan himself deserves respect, not derision? Or is Stefan somehow above being fact-checked and conclusion-checked?
To Stefan at 15:
That's good to know. Want to make it easy for us (so we don't have to look at all the PDC reports) and let us know if you've taken money from parties, candidates or coalitions for any of pro- or anti- positions you've taken on candidates or inititatives? Of course you don't have to .... but it would go a long way to erase any mis-perceptions that could be taken from your stated PDC desires...
Posted by: Bill Anderson on September 4, 2007 03:36 PMI am not implying anything without proof. I have always said "could" -- since Stefan takes a position that invites such inference.
Too lazy? No....but if there is nothing to hide, why not declare it?
As before, Stefan acts as a "checker" on the media. It's only fair that folks "check" on his proclomations too.
Why do you think Stefan is beyond fact or assumption checking? Is this a "faith" thing that doesn't need logic?
Posted by: Bill Anderson on September 4, 2007 06:27 PMGive it a rest. You falsely stated that Stefan's position was against openness, and you unreasonably implied that his position could possibly be used to cover up paid commentary that the PDC might be interested in.
And this nonsense takes the cake: "if there is nothing to hide, why not declare it?" Um. If it was reported to the PDC, it IS declared. Go to their web site and type in "Sharkansky." Not hard.
And YOU are the one who is wrong, and you have the nerve to complain about being a check? About a lack of logic?
Admit you were wrong and move on.
Posted by: pudge on September 4, 2007 11:54 PM