I have been asked why I am not blogging on the the CNET article "The coming crackdown on blogging."

Ok, I read the article and admit I had a pang of concern when I first read it, but I am not one to jump on bandwagons so I bookmarked the article until supporting articles were about. Over the next day there was plenty of articles, though almost entirely from bloggers, or news search feeds pointing to cnet/bogger articles.

Near the end of the first day I found this press release "Statement of the Campaign Legal Center," and was glad I don't have a hairtrigger when it comes to strange stories like this one. I hate having to correct myself, though I occasionally do.

Washington, D.C. — In a recent interview with CNET, Federal Election Commissioner Brad Smith claimed that as a result of new campaign laws and and a recent court decision, online news organizations and bloggers may soon wake up to find their activities regulated by government bureaucrats. That would indeed be troubling, if it were true. Fortunately, Mr. Smith - an avowed opponent of most campaign finance regulation - is simply wrong.

The issue the FEC - and the courts - are grappling with is how to deal with online political ads by candidates and parties, and with paid advertising that is coordinated with those groups. As the Internet becomes a vital new force in politics, we are simply going through a natural transition as we work out how, and when, to apply longstanding campaign finance principles - designed to fight corruption - to political expenditures on the Web. Mr. Smith has advocated an extreme position that politicians, parties and outside groups can pay for Internet advertising with "soft money" - unlimited, unregulated checks from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. A federal court rightly rejected that position, saying that the new ban on soft money in our elections obviously applies to Internet advertising, too.

These laws are decidedly NOT aimed at online press, commentary or blogs, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was carefully drafted to exclude them. The FEC has now been asked to initiate a rulemaking to work out how to deal with different kinds of Internet political expenditures, and there will be plenty of opportunity for public commentary. The Commission's duty then will be to distinguish candidate and party expenditures, and coordinated independent expenditures, on the Internet (which should be subject to campaign finance law like any other expenditures) from activity by bloggers, Internet news services and citizens acting on their own that should remain unregulated, free and robust.

Mr. Smith's comments are obviously designed to instigate a furor in the blogosphere to pressure Congress to reverse the court decision requiring that paid political ads on the Internet should be treated like any other paid advertisements. Mr. Smith has a right to try to win converts to his anti-regulatory philosophy, but he has an obligation to present the issues fairly and forthrightly, and his comments to CNET fail both tests.

So, the FEC's attention is not on the blogs or the press, but campaigns and the partisan internet ads. However as Power Line points out there is still some reason for concern.

Once one sees that nothing in this decision limits its reach to paid ads, and that Potter and the McCain-Feingold sponsors favor regulating unpaid ads, the argument they raise falls apart, and all of Commissioner Smith's points are, in fact, correct. The entire internet is up for grabs, and there is no reason that republication of campaign emails or posts, or advocacy of candidates on blogs, or links to candidates web sites, are not in serious danger. Although it is gratifying that some Democrats on the FEC are disavowing any intention to regulate blogs, it would be nice if Senators McCain and Feingold would do the same and if Congress would clearly undo the damage it appears to have done.

So we can breath normal again, but the matter bears watching. Personally I don't agree with the whole McCain-Feingold campaign reform, and I think that it is an afront to the first amendment.

Read more easing of the FEC threat to blogs:

Michelle Malkin - HOW BIG IS THE FEC THREAT TO BLOGS?
What Attitude Problem? - Here and here
Democracy Project - Countering Candor at the FEC or, How Do You Stop a Blogswarm?
No Easy Answers - They Can't Have It Both Ways (Or Can They?)