Online Freedom of Speech Act

Mr. Speaker, I seek to manage the time allocated for the opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House bill 1606. This legislation, under the guise of protecting bloggers, actually undercuts the progress made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and reopens the floodgates of corrupting soft money in Federal elections.

I also rise in opposition to this legislation being considered on the suspension calendar when it is so clearly a

controversial matter on which there has never been a committee markup for members to offer amendments and, under the rules, we cannot offer amendments here today.

The debate today is about what is the best way to approach coordinated expenditures that are campaign-related on the Internet. We all understand that the Internet is a wonderful tool for political activity. Its accessibility and generally low cost are invigorating to the body politic. I belong to moveon.org. I read my e-mails every time they are up. But, by the same token, its increased usage by candidates and parties and the increased resources being put into this technology for campaign advertising suggest that we need to be cautious about attempts to exempt all Internet activity from Federal campaign finance laws.

Let me say a couple of words about bloggers, because bloggers have generated and received a lot of attention here. No one wants to regulate bloggers, not the campaign finance reformers, not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not the Federal Election Commission. That is clear. The question is whether to exempt individual speech, as I have proposed, or create blanket exemptions for entities as varied as labor unions and major corporations who make soft money contributions at the behest of candidates, on behalf of candidates, and at the direction of candidates.

That is why The New York Times editorialized yesterday in opposition to H.R. 1606, and they argued that the bill uses freedom of speech as a fig leaf.

The issue here is not individual speech. The issue is corrupting soft money. The primary constitutional basis for campaign finance regulation is preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption of candidates or officeholders. Creating a new way for Members of Congress or the Cabinet to solicit and then coordinate or control unlimited amounts of soft money is precisely the scenario campaign finance reform banned.

We are talking about legislators. For example, let us say we had a prescription drug bill that was written by the pharmaceutical industry. This Congress could pass that bill in the middle of the night, and then Members of Congress who passed the bill could actually ask those same pharmaceutical interests to write six-figure checks for campaign ads for them to appear on the Internet.

But let me give another example. What could happen is you could have an energy bill, provisions of which were written by the oil and gas industry. Let us say a company like Exxon, as a result of it, had the highest profits they have ever had, record profits because of gasoline prices going out of control. The same people who advocated for that energy bill that Exxon supported could go to Exxon and say, could you use some of those profits to support my campaign with a massive online campaign ad buy.

This is no minor affair. This is a major unraveling of the law.

As Senators McCain and Feingold have made clear, this is not free speech, this is paid speech, politically paid for with unlimited corporate and union contributions.

It is important to note that the bill under consideration today uses the exact same language that the FEC tried and that a Federal court struck down. The judge in that case, Colleen Kollar-Kottelly, wrote that the provisions would ``permit rampant circumvention of the campaign finance laws and foster corruption.'' She went on to say that the provision would ``severely undermine'' the campaign finance law. Her rulings have gone before the D.C. Court of Appeals twice, and they have been upheld.

Just days ago, a CNN poll found that the American people believe that corruption in government is the second most important issue facing this Nation after the economy. The American people are tired of the scandals.

We are considering today a bill that flies in the face of public concerns about corruption and is likely to create new corruption and new scandals. The bill that we are considering will also allow political parties to use soft money to pay for Internet ads bashing candidates.

Experience teaches us that professionals who are political will find ways to exploit any perceived loopholes. For example, the national party soft-money loophole started as a minor blip in the 1980s and exploded into a half a billion-dollar binge by the 2000 cycle. Corporations and billionaires will be enabled to pay for Internet- related expenses of requesting candidates or requesting parties, and the public will not have a clue where this money comes from, because virtually all they will see is the Internet advertising designed and created by candidates.

That is one of the reasons why this bill is opposed by Common Cause, opposed by Public Citizen, opposed by U.S. PIRG, opposed by Democracy 21, and opposed by the League of Women Voters. That is why The Washington Post editorialized this week that this would be carving a huge cyber-loophole in the soft money ban. That is why The New York Times said yesterday, ``make no mistake about it. This bill is to protect political bagmen, not bloggers.''

In protecting bloggers, we need to approach this the right way, and this bill is the wrong way.

I have introduced a bill with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) called the Internet Anti-Corruption and Free Speech Protection Act of 2005. Under this legislation, communications over the Internet by individuals on their own Web sites would be treated the same as they are in H.R. 1606. But our substitute, which we cannot allow today, we are not allowed to present, would not blow open the same gaping loophole for paid advertising.

Unfortunately, because the leadership has chosen to bring this up under a suspension of the rules, we are unable to offer our substitute. The suspension calendar is for naming post offices and other noncontroversial matters. It is not a place to create new loopholes in the campaign finance laws. Limiting the democratic process and stifling the debate is an unacceptable way to undertake such an important matter of public policy. It is wrong to do so. It is unfair. It is an abuse of power.

So why are we rushing through this suspension? I urge my colleagues to oppose this suspension so that we might be able to have a full debate, including consideration of the Shays-Meehan alternative bill to protect bloggers, without creating new avenues for corruption.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who knows and understands the rules and procedures of this institution as well as anyone who has ever served here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 35 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am a friend of the Internet. In fact, I sponsored legislation that would exempt bloggers from FEC legislation.

But the issue is how we draw the lines to balance. We do not exempt the Internet from laws controlling child pornography; we do not allow child pornography on the Internet. We do

not exempt the Internet from consumer safety laws. We do not exempt the Internet from intellectual property or copyright laws. We do not because we think those laws are important.

We wrestle with the details of unavoidable and unintended consequences. Why do we do the hard work of wading through the details? Because why would we do anything else? Why should we disregard the integrity of the political process?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I can appreciate the gentleman from California's consistency. He was opposed to campaign finance reform. On the floor, he said he was opposed to any limit. He would just as soon have no limits at all on any campaign finance. He thinks corporations should give.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a strong supporter of campaign finance reform.

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who has been a courageous hero in the fight for campaign finance reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in this time when a cloud of scandal hangs over Washington, when the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States has been indicted for perjury, making false statements, when a top White House official is led away in handcuffs, indicted on charges of making false statements related to an investigation of his dealing with lobbyists, at a time when a top Republican lobbyist and fundraiser has been indicted for fraud, when that investigation is the subject of a Department of Justice investigation, and today over in the other body there is a hearing going on looking into possible other misdealings, at a time when the American people have indicated that they are fed up with scandals, how can this House support a bill that would open up new avenues for corruption to enter the political process?

The courts have clearly argued that the reason why you can limit campaign contributions is because of corruption and the appearance of corruption. Why would we take a step backwards from campaign finance reform and open up a loophole so big that you could drive a truck through it?

Finally, I keep hearing Senator Reid's name mentioned here. I want to assure you of something. If the Senate brings up this bill, they will get more than 20 minutes a side to discuss it. They will discuss it for as long as it needs to be discussed. That is what we should have done here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1606) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1606.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the advent of the Internet Age has brought about a host of new ways for citizens to participate in the political arena. Web sites, e-mail, and blogging have provided new avenues for political activists to reach out to potential voters, to raise issue awareness, to solicit contributions, and to mobilize the get-out-the-vote efforts.

The Internet has also generated a more widespread flow of news information through not only mainstream media sources but also independent Web sites and blogs. Most importantly, it has created a completely new opportunity for all citizens to exercise their right to free speech by opining on the most important issues of the day as they see them, as the citizens see them.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, all of this activity is actually under attack today. When Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act in 2002, the law apparently was unclear on what impact it would have on political speech on the Internet. The Federal Election Commission interpreted the law to say that Congress did not intend to regulate the Internet when it passed BCRA. The bill's sponsors disagreed, and they sued the FEC in the courts.

A recent appellate court decision will force the FEC to implement a rule that would cover Internet communications. If the Congress does not act now and make it clear that it does not want the Internet to be regulated, the FEC will adopt a new rule to regulate the Internet; and by passing H.R. 1606, also known as the Online Freedom of Speech Act, Congress can prevent this from happening.

H.R. 1606, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude Internet communications from the definition of ``public communication,'' thus exempting Web sites, blogs, and online advertisements from Federal Elections Commission, FEC, regulation.

This bill has very, very strong bipartisan support. In testimony before the FEC and before the Committee on House Administration, both liberal and conservative bloggers expressed their support for this exemption. Senate minority leader Reid has introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate and written to the FEC to express his belief that the Internet should not be regulated.

The regulations proposed by the FEC could limit the ability of online activists to talk to campaigns, to give discounts on advertisements, to spend money maintaining their site, to link to candidates' sites, to advocate the election of a candidate, or to send political e-mails.

The FEC would potentially grant some bloggers and online publications what is known as the ``media exemption,'' which would allow these bloggers to operate free of FEC regulation like any standard newspaper or news program. However, the rules were very unclear about how the FEC would determine who qualified for the exemption. Potentially, the FEC's rulings could become content-based restrictions on speech and on free speech.

As we consider this legislation, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that the Internet is not like traditional forms of media. Unlike television and radio, activists do not require large sums of money to post their message on the Internet. Also, the number of people reached and the success of communication are not directly linked to the amount of money that is spent.

In addition, the Internet is not an invasive medium. In other words, the recipients of communication are exposed to the communication only after they take deliberate and affirmative steps to find a particular Web site. Further, the Internet has generated a surge in grassroots involvement in the political process.

Mr. Speaker, historically, Congress has regulated political speech only where it has the potential to cause corruption or the appearance of corruption. There has been no demonstration that the growth of the Internet has had a corrupting influence on politics. There is, however, ample evidence that the Internet has had a positive effect on our political system by encouraging young people, a whole new generation of people, to get involved in our political process.

Any Internet regulations would be complicated and difficult for a lay person to understand. Bloggers and other online activists should not have to worry about accidentally running afoul of campaign finance laws when they are expressing their own opinions on the Internet.

Regulatory proponents claim regulations are necessary to reduce the influence of wealthy interests. In fact, Mr. Speaker, these complex regulations, if enacted, would actually increase the influence of big money and politics, because then only the wealthy could afford to hire election attorneys to be certain that they were abiding by these very complicated regulations.

The Committee on House Administration, under Chairman Ney's leadership, had a hearing on this topic back last September; and, at that hearing, several Members of Congress and of the committee, including myself, actually suggested that the Congress needed to step into this process to clarify Congress' intent on this issue instead of leaving it up to Federal agencies and the court system.

Congress began this discussion by passing BCRA. By debating and voting on this bill today, the House will clarify once and for all its intent on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts who referenced three editorial boards.

I think it is important to note that these editorial boards are nothing more than paid scribes. They literally make their living by using the first amendment. But everyone knows that the Internet has negatively affected the cash flow of the institutional print media. It is the height of hypocrisy for the print media to use their right to free speech to opine against their competition on the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we are actually being accused of abuse of power, as I understand it, for bringing up the Senate minority leader's companion bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), who is a distinguished member of the House Administration Committee that did ask for us to bring this up under suspension.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I spent 8 years of my life as the Michigan Secretary of State. That was a job where I had a principal responsibility as the chief elections officer of that State. During that time, we made constant attempts to increase voter participation and voter turn-out, particularly among young people. And I believe this bill does that.

Mr. Speaker, we must stand up for the right of freedom of speech and for the first amendment. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act.

My bill is a simple one. It is only one sentence long. It achieves one goal, but that goal is a worthy one: the protection of free speech on the Internet.

Without this legislation, I fear that the cold, callous, and clumsy hand of Federal regulation may stifle political speech in cyberspace. Recently, we know the Federal judiciary ruled that, absent our congressional action, the FEC must regulate this form of speech, even though the FEC clearly does not want to. The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the first amendment is the Internet. Today, the Internet is free from FEC regulation. Clearly, it should remain that way.

The Internet is a marketplace of ideas that welcomes all participants on equal footing. It is extremely cheap. In fact, if one has access to the Internet at home or a public library, it can be free, absolutely free. A Web site's success is driven by the quality of its content, not the quantity of funds that are poured into it. It is one of the most democratic forms of speech that we know today, and it is an outstanding opportunity for all individuals across

our Nation to participate in our democratic process and impact public policy.

The Internet, Mr. Speaker, is the new town square; and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there. Not only would such regulation be a nightmare to administer and enforce, it would place complex responsibility on ordinary citizens that would functionally restrict their political free speech and violate their first amendment rights. Today, thousands and thousands of Americans run blogs that are focused on politics, and millions of viewers visit their favorite bloggers' Web sites for commentary often not found in the mainstream media.

Without H.R. 1606, I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a candidate's press release to an e-mail list, and the list goes on. If bloggers are compelled to hire lawyers to navigate this complex, gray, murky world of Federal regulation, many will simply cease to operate. That would only leave the wealthier participants in this blog-osphere and undermine public access to information and the chance for smaller groups to participate in our democracy in this fashion.

Those opposing the bill claim that some day, somehow, somewhere, there may be corruption. Yet the FEC itself could not see the threat of corruption that is present in a ``medium that allows almost limitless, inexpensive communication across the broadest cross-section of the American population.'' Let those who cry corruption cite examples and carry the burden in this debate to abridge the first amendment rights of our citizens. Mr. Speaker, it is a heavy burden to carry.

In 2002, before I came to this body, Congress passed a sweeping new campaign finance law; and, in a rare moment of restraint, nowhere in the new law did Congress impose restrictions on the Internet. Consequently, the FEC, the entity solely devoted to regulating campaign activity, left that promising new technology alone.

Under the new law, public communications were clearly defined; and, just as clearly, the Internet does not appear on this list. Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that Congress was aware of the Internet's existence 3 years ago. Indeed, it is mentioned in other parts of the legislation.

So, logically, the FEC declined to regulate public communications online, equating the give and take on the Internet to candidate forums and rallies and debates that are open to the public. Just like on the street corner, people can talk back to a blog by writing their own posts or establishing their own sites. How do you talk back to a radio ad except with another radio ad that costs perhaps tens of thousands of dollars to run? This is very different. Web sites and messages are very effective, very democratic, and very affordable tools, a different means of communication.

Despite congressional silence on this matter, in 2004, a Federal court instructed the FEC to regulate Internet communications, and that process is under way. Because the vast majority of Web sites are independently and inexpensively operated, regulatory burdens are going to limit the Internet's usefulness as a political forum.

I am gratified to see the thoughtful and energetic response of the blog-osphere to these proposed rules. It is just this type of free exchange of opinions that we are trying to protect today. The bottom line is that campaign finance laws must enhance, not hinder electoral participation; and I should note that campaign blogs and all official campaign activities will still be regulated by the FEC after the passage of this legislation.

I am proud that my democratic colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has cosponsored this bill, signifying that this is truly a bipartisan effort. In the other body, the distinguished Senate minority leader has partnered with my friend, Senator Coburn, to defend American freedom of speech online by introducing this identical language in the other body.

Over 200 years ago, in this House of Representatives, James Madison stated, ``The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments.'' Today, Congress finds itself debating the very same rights under far more modern realities.

New regulations are not the answer each time a new technology emerges. The bipartisan Online Freedom of Speech Act protects the first amendment rights of Internet users and prevents the FEC from making needless and arbitrary distinctions.

When the choice is between more regulation and more freedom, we should always err on the side of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the irony that we have people here defending vigorous open debate and free speech by invoking one of the most restrictive procedures of the House of Representatives. Apparently, people here believe that James Madison thought that there should be free debate except in the Congress of the United States.

Under the procedure, and people should understand who will be monitoring this debate, for many of us the key issue is not the substance. Yes, I thing we ought to legislate. It is the outrageous high-handed arrogance we have seen now become, unfortunately, second nature to the majority, that brings an important bill invoking constitutional principles and history and modern technology, and how you integrate those, and the question of campaign finance, into the most restrictive procedure.

We have 40 minutes to debate this. No amendments are possible. Apparently this is the perfect bill. This must have sprung like Minerva from the forehead of Zeus in perfect form, and here it is. God forbid that the United States Congress or House of Representatives should be able to amend it or change it.

It will be here. Take it or leave it. And of course the assumption is that people who agree that we should not be restricting the free use of the Internet will be so intimidated by the fear that if they voted ``no'' they will be criticized that they will fall in line.

No, I do not think that works any more. I think the American public is smart enough to know that the end does not always justify the means and that the irony of purporting to defend free speech by shutting it down in the Congress of the United States is too bizarre.

You want to know how restrictive this is? This procedure allows a total of 40 minutes for debate. Is 40 minutes a lot of time? This Republican majority has regularly kept roll calls open after debates have finished for longer than we get to debate this bill. They will spend way more than 40 minutes twisting each other's arms in private, rather than allow us to have the debate time.

What, are we overworked? We are hardly as a Congress overworked. We would have plenty of time to debate it. Whatever happened to the notion that a bill comes out of committee, and I am a ranking member of a committee. I would not allow for my committee, if I could help it, a bill to come to the floor where there was substantial opposition under suspension of the rules.

This has nothing to do with the substance. There are issues to be debated here. Forty minutes and no debate. The rules are suspended because free speech is so important to these supporters that free speech must be sacrificed as we get it. They are going to destroy the village in order to save it. If someone would explain to me, I would yield my time, why we could not have this as a regular bill under regular procedure.

Is there some reason unbeknownst to me that kept us from having this as a bill that came to the floor, that people can go to the Rules Committee and we could have amendments and we could debate it for more than 20 minutes on each side. I would be glad to yield to any advocate of free speech who can tell me why it has become inapplicable in this bill.

Well, I have no takers. Apparently, all we get in defense of this is free silence. And I will commend my colleagues for having the good sense not to try to defend their procedure.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let us do that. Let us defeat this now and send it to a rule. The gentleman from California's (Mr. Doolittle) idea of a substantive defense is maybe a tribute to the gallantry that he continues to exemplify long after it may have gone out of fashion. He says the reason this is a good idea is that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) said so.

I highly esteem my colleague from California with whom I disagree in this case. But the notion that her imprimatur is in itself a substantive defense of failing to follow the regular procedure does not meet the argument.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, you said all of the Members there present. How many were there?

Mr. Speaker, how many Republicans?

Mr. Speaker, so apparently four or five Members have been able to do this. I will repeat that we have heard no substantive defense of why this came.

I would agree with what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) said, sometimes you do not know something is controversial; but once you learn that it is, then you have the regular procedure.

I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, do I oppose it? Yes, I oppose it. Under this procedure I will oppose it. I will not support the diminution, the continued reduction of democracy in the House.

And I think, yes, there could be a lot of free speech, but not by shutting it down in the House. I will say again, nobody can give us a substantive justification of why this is being done this way. Look, this involves the Constitution. It involves the complex issues of campaign finance regulation. It involves how you take technology and how you adapt basic constitutional principles to it, and that is to be debated by 20 minutes on each side, and that is to be preformed with no amendments.

Mr. Speaker, it is a joke. It is self-parody. Let us all defend free speech by not having any. I hope that this is voted down and that we then can have an appropriate debate under the rules of the House with amendments and with full discussion.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, again, invoking one other individual does not pass for substantive debate. I am surprised. Do you not understand what real argument is?

I do.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I did opine at the hearings, since there was complete agreement among all of the Members present, that we did not want to regulate the Internet, that we might be able to take care of this on the suspension calendar.

And I never have felt so powerful in the minority as I do today.

Mr. Speaker, I was the only Democrat present.

Mr. Speaker, I do not remember.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the procedural objections to this, and certainly when I made the suggestion during our hearing that we could probably handle this on the suspension, I believed that was the case. Obviously, there is more controversy than I had believed at the time.

But I still believe that this bill is very much worth supporting, and I do support this bill. If I believed what the New York Times and the Washington Post said, I would indeed be concerned. I was a strong supporter of the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. I signed the discharge petition.

I voted for it. I am glad it passed. I would note, however, that what the bill before us does today is really a lot more modest than the rhetoric would lead one to believe. It does not repeal section 441(b) of the act that prohibits contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations. And all of the hoo-rah-rah about soft money and corporate money, I am sure it is sincere, is simply, as a matter of law, incorrect.

What this bill would do would be to allow communications on the Internet to avoid the heavy hand of regulation. And I do believe that is important. Today, if a local candidate has a Web page and they decide to say something very positive about the election of their party's candidate for President, they have a problem under the FEC rule.

And if my Web site, Lofgren for Congress, links to Feinstein for Senate, I probably am violating the rules. And there is no need for that. We do not want the heavy regulatory load on the Internet, nor do we need to do it.

Under current law, unless we pass this exemption, Daily Chaos, which if they call me for a comment on a candidate and it was run on their daily Web site within the specified time, we might have an actual problem here unless they are entitled to the press exemption. It is not clear that they are.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important since the court was not sure what our intention was when we passed BCRA that we should make it clear that the Internet is not part of the public communications covered by the act.

I do believe that in coming from Silicon Valley, especially so, that the ability to use the new technology to promote the viewpoint of individuals is essential to the growth of democracy. We have seen ever- increasing numbers of people participate in elections.

I think part of the reason for that is the ability to use the Internet to communicate. We are concerned, and rightly so, about the cost of TV. It costs a huge amount of money to run TV ads. Well, the cost to send an e-mail is almost nothing. So the use of the Internet is a great democratizer; that is little ``d,'' not big. We need to make sure that communications using the Internet are protected.

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that what this bill will do would be to protect the technology, to protect the Internet itself. It would not reduce in any way the prohibitions found in 441(b) any more than a corporation could use its funds to buy lawn signs or political signs; they could not pay for ads either.

And so I do think that it is worth noting that for the record I would just like to say that in this case the bloggers have got it right. This bill will keep the FEC out of the business of regulating political speech on the Internet.