Washington Goes To Mr. Smith
Leo Smith is a living example of how some "campaign reform" efforts can
throttle free speech.
Last year Smith added a section to his business Web site. The new section
called for the defeat of Rep. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, his
Congressional representative. Smith spent no money on the addition, just
his time, since he was already paying for the Web site.
However, shortly after the election, Smith was told by the Federal
Elections Commission (FEC) that, because of his use of his Web site in the
campaign, he was in violation of federal campaign law. His crime? According
to the FEC, by using his Web page as he did, he had spent more than $250 in
expressing his political views, without disclosing his identity and filing
the reports with the federal government that such campaign donations require.
Smith was shocked. By his reckoning, he hadn't spent $250. In fact, he
hadn't spent a dime on the site - just his time. However, the FEC said it
determines the value of Web sites by counting, among other factors, the
cost of the computer hardware and software used to create the site. If a
computer cost more than $250, the FEC said, its owner would have to meet
the filing and disclosure requirements of federal law.
The ACLU points out that, using that logic, if the computer cost more than
$1,000, its owner would have to register as a political action committee
(PAC).
"Forget about free speech," Smith told the ACLU in an interview. "If you
can't advocate what you want for an election, that strikes at the heart of
our democracy."
Smith in essence has told the FEC to stuff it.
"I told them that I was definitely not going to take my site down, I was
not going to file the reports and I was not going to post my name on the
site," he said. "I told them that from a free speech standpoint, they were
totally out of line."
The FEC in turn has informed him he faces possible legal action.
"Leo Smith's story proves our fundamental point: you cannot divide money
and speech," says Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU's Washington
National Office. "To argue otherwise, is to ignore reality. The Internet
allows anyone with a phone line, as the Supreme Court said, to become a
'town crier with a voice that resonates further than it could from any
soapbox.' Congress must act to ensure that the FEC does not gag the new
town criers."
Smith's story has provoked some members of Congress to offer legislation
that would exempt political speech on the Internet by individual citizens
from regulation by the federal government.
But why just the Internet? Why should citizens - no matter what media or
form of expression they choose to use -- be limited or severely burdened
regarding how they can spend their own money to express their political
opinions?
(Source: ACLU press release / Thanks to Richard Tomasso)
| 
