The following editorial was written by Darleen Click and first appeared here. It is reprinted with permission of the author.

For good reason the blogsphere is rightfully alarmed by the threats coming from the FEC in regards to free speech on the Internet. Transcripts of the interview with FEC commissionar Bradley Smith can be found at Redstate.org.

She [Judge Koller-Cotella] orders us to regulate the Internet, again what I point out is -- it is in no way limited to paid advertising. In fact, it would be contrary to the tone of the opinions limited only to paid advertising. In another part of the opinion, she struck down one of our regulations where we exempted unpaid advertising. So, I, you know, this was, it’s – it’s in no ways limited to unpaid advertising ...

I note that we didn’t have enough votes to muster up an appeal of the judge’s decision, uh, on this particular issue, so obviously, uh, half of my colleagues [the 3 Democrats] at least feel that we should be doing more regulation of the Internet.

The McCain-Feingold Incumbents Protection Act got its impetus during the 2000 campaign as John McCain railed, shrieked and gnashed his teeth over "dirty Texas money" financed independent ads sullying his sainted and clearly not-to-be-questioned record in Arizona. McCain was so incensed over individuals exercising their First Amendment rights on their own dime he figured it had to be a conspiracy that must be stopped. The MSM embraced the "maverick" McCain who's ostensible mantel of Republicanism allowed them to use his intemperate remarks and attacks on fellow Republicans as a figleaf for their own anti-Republican bent. They rarely questioned his red-faced podium pounding about "reforming" campaign "finances" and certainly didn't ask the tough questions on squaring the outright bans on "advocacy" with the First Amendment.

And now, in the wake of the 2004 elections and the success of the blogsphere, the sights of those who can't stand independent speech has been set upon the Internet and bloggers. The language of the McCain-Feingold used to piddle all over the Constitution in regards to "in-kind contributions" is being geared up as a firehose aimed at people who are using the Internet as a virtual townhall. It's not only Free Speech but Free Association that has arroused the continued ire of Capt. John McQueeg (as evidenced by his disingenuous attacks on the Swiftboat Vets who spoke out against John Kerry). For McQueeg and his fellow travelers in the FEC, people are allowed only to associate, trade information, debate the merits and demerits of issues and candidates when such activities ineffectual. There is little difference in kind between my advocacy speech in puting up a "Bush-Cheney 04" sign in my front yard and having the same graphic on my weblog. But McQueeg wants my weblog defined as a "monetary contribution." If I host a cocktail party for 25 neighbors to share campaign literature I received from a presidential candidate or I send an email to 25 people in my address book with the same information, McQueeg wants the FEC to "regulate" the latter.

As long as us little-people know our place on the good ship [Mc]Caine, Cap'n John won't punish us.

I call bovine excrement. This is a direct assault on the Constitution. And I don't want to hear about "end runs" around the regulations that call for bloggers to have to do something to "qualify" as the press so they can get an exemption. I have the right under the First Amendment to Free Speech and Free Association. No one, no McQueeg, no Judge Koller-Cotella, no FEC Democrat can take that away. My blog is my own piece of virtual real estate and if I can have a sign on my lawn or a cocktail party in my house than I can damned well do the same thing here.

I will not be shutup or shutdown. The last thing all the McQueeg's want to fool with is a pre-menopausal woman. I just am in no mood to suffer such mendacity.

Others discussing the issue:

Jeff Harrell rightfully points out that the Federalist Papers (a series of public relation advocacy releases written under a :::gasp::: pen name) would have been banned under McCain-Feingold.
Capt. Ed writes an open letter here
LaShawn Barber notes that this issue unites bloggers across the political spectrum here.

Powerline has been running with this across several posts, the latest on how McQueeg's mouthpiece is trying to deceptively quiet the great unwashed bloggers.

Michelle Malkin posts a nice roundup of related links.

You know, hyperlinks which the FEC thinks represents in-kind "contributions". Gosh, ya'think if I put a bunch of charity hyperlinks on my blog the IRS will let me deduct them as "in-kind" monetary contributions??

Of course, the irrepressible CITIZEN JOURNALIST weighs with a mini-manifesto and an update.

UPDATE Capt. Salty, while disclaiming any endorsement of McCain-Feingold, skates around the semantics of "advocacy" and "activism" while asking why shouldn't "activist" Screw-'em-Markos be regulated by campaign "finance" laws. Let me be perfectly clear and this is where my libertarian side (do notice the small "L") comes to the fore. As long as all financial arrangements are disclosed and transparent, IMHO any further "regulation" of campaign "finances" are an assault on the First Amendment. Limiting MY ability to use MY money, whether it's for a backyard BBQ for Bush or a weblog for the Governator, is a direct contradiction of everything the Founding Fathers were thinking when they drew up the Constitution.

----

Darleen maintains a weblog about "parenting, politics and other prattlings" here.