The most important question I would like you to consider is what harm has been done to the political process by internet activity.

You cited this as the purpose of BCRA:

Let's set aside how successful the legislation was and just agree that it is a work in progress. The point of BCRA was "reducing the corrupting influence of big money donations." I have not been able to identify how that is a problem on the internet. Howard Dean raised large amounts of money as did Move On. They did not raise it from well heeled special interests who are corrupting the political process.

I asked a pro BCRA poster the other day to identify the specific harm that needed to be corrected on the internet. The poster presented a parade of horribles about terrible things that big corporations might be able to do. The examples were less than persuasive. The fact is that corporations do not need the internet to raise vast sums of money. Corporations already have very successful means of accomplishing their fund raising goals. I am not aware that Tom DeLay was soliciting contributions on the internet.

In point of fact, internet contributions appear to offer at least the potential for a greater deal of transparency and accountability than other types of contributions. It would be very easy to implement a law or regulation that required instant disclosure of all internet contributions. Let's try limiting any legislative or regulatory over sight to transparency and see what that accomplishes before we throw the baby out with the bath water.

What a lot of people fail to realize is that the power to regulate is the power to destroy. That is my concern. Unless you can identify specific and concrete examples of the harm that we need to prevent, I fail to see the need to extend legislative regulation to the internet.

The NRA could raise a lot of money over the internet. So what? Richard Viguerie spin offs can and have raised tremendous amounts of money over the internet. So what? I see BCRA as a tool to regulate, control and even destroy free speech in one of the last frontiers of 1st Amendment freedom.

Let's be frank. Both political parties are interested in controlling their message during and between campaigns. Both parties would prefer to dominate the discussion of both candidates and issues at all times. To the extent that bloggers interfere or distract from the message of political parties, the internet is a threat. To the extent that independent organizations mobilize and politicize citizens outside of the party structure, the internet is a threat.

Let's consider this statement:

I don't see any reason why the FEC shouldn't include legitimate online journalists and bloggers in the "media exemption" rule.

And this one:

so legitimate bloggers and journalists alike don't have to worry about vague rules for legitimate activity.

Exactly what is a legitimate blogger? For that matter what is a legitimate journalist? I suspect that you and I could differ greatly in our interpretation of both of those criteria. I cannot imagine a legislative definition of legitimate journalist that would include Bill O'Reilly. That's just my personal opinion of course, but I would love to see a definition that included Bill, but excluded ...  who? Do we want to exclude Matt Drudge from the definition of a legitimate journalist? (Allow me to make a clear distinction between a legitimate journalist and a responsible journalist).

I would like to suggest that any legislation, instead of putting furthur restrictions on the internet, instruct the FEC to relax or delay whatever standards currently exist until specific, concrete, harm to the political process is identified. The internet is a fanatastic laboratory of ideas. The internet is a civil libertarians dream. The internet may very well be our last, best hope for democracy. Please don't allow over zealous and well intentioned do gooder liberals to screw it up.

Thanks for stopping by Senator. Your willingness to engage in a cyber town hall meeting on a vital issue has earned you tremendous respect in my book.