September 16, 1999

Homemade Campaign Sites May Face More Regulation

By REBECCA FAIRLEY RANEY

he notion that the creator of a homemade political Web site might need to register with federal regulators or be fined has already generated controversy in Washington. But the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, which passed the House this week, may create more ways for Web activists to get in trouble with the government.

The terms of the bill, which now goes to the Senate, indirectly open up several new ways that political sites built by individuals might qualify as campaign contributions under the rules of the Federal Election Commission, according to election law experts. Such contributions must be reported to the FEC. The bill would also double the penalties for violating the rules.

"At the very least, Shays-Meehan would exacerbate the uncertainty of anyone wanting to use the Internet," said James X. Dempsey, senior staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. "A lot of the very diverse, individual, non-moneyed activity that the campaign laws are supposed to promote would be squashed."

Related Articles Regulators Ready to Set Some Rules on Internet Campaigning (September 8, 1999) Small Campaign Web Sites May Collide With Election Laws (May 16, 1999)

In one example, if a supporter copied a "Vote for Elizabeth Dole" banner from the candidate's Web site and posted it on his own Web site, the act might be considered a "coordinated contribution" -- which, if the Shays-Meehan bill became law, would have to be reported to federal regulators.

People who have had any contact with a campaign and who express opinions about candidates online could also be considered donors under the bill's terms, experts on election law said. "Contact" could include an activity as simple as subscribing to a campaign's e-mail newsletter. And if an activist group praises or criticizes a candidate's position on its own Web site within 60 days of an election, the action could be considered a contribution.

The bill would increase the penalties for violations of election law and require the FEC to work harder to crack down on violations. The penalty for a violation that is "not knowing or willful" is now $5,000 or the amount of the unreported contribution, and the bill would increase the penalty to $10,000.

The reform bill was authored by Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, and Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Democrat of Massachusetts. Its primary purpose is to ban "soft money," the donations to political parties that allow candidates to circumvent limits on direct contributions to their campaigns.

But the conflicts the bill would create between political expression and Federal campaign regulations underscore a fundamental issue: Should campaign laws designed to monitor and control big spending on television and print ads be used to regulate individual political speech in an age when anyone can reach voters online?

Under the FEC's current interpretation of the law, if a person spends more than $250 on a Web site that encourages voters to support or oppose a candidate, the act counts as a donation, and the site's owner must file with the FEC as a donor. Spending more than $1,000 turns the site owner into a political action committee, with similar filing requirements.

In one advisory opinion, the FEC calculated the cost of a site by adding "the domain name registration fee, the amount invested in the hardware (computer and peripherals) that created the Web site and the utility costs associated with creating and maintaining the site" -- a formula under which almost any Web site would "cost" more than $250.

Digital Campaigns Related Articles Ongoing Coverage of the Internet at Political Campaigns Forum Do Internet Political Campaigns Work?

Critics of such Federal regulation say the government may be chilling political speech by essentially requiring anyone who expresses an opinion online to have an accountant and a lawyer on hand to insure compliance with the requirements.

"It is not constitutional to regulate [the Internet] in the way you regulate broadcast media," said Dempsey of the CDT. The issues raised by the Shays-Meehan bill, Dempsey said, give the FEC an impetus to resolve the questions surrounding Internet campaigning.

Dempsey noted that, in contrast to its inactivity on many questions raised by the Internet, the FEC moved quickly to allow campaigns to collect contributions online. The commission, he said, "allows the money to flow, but stumbles over whether a link is a contribution."

In a report to be released Thursday, the CDT outlines the history of FEC rulings in this area and calls upon the agency to consider the unique characteristics of the Internet.

Scott Thomas, chairman of the FEC, declined to comment Wednesday on the Internet issues presented by the Shays-Meehan bill, in keeping with the commission's policy against commenting on pending legislation.

Representative Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, introduced an amendment to the bill that would have settled many of the Internet issues by exempting political Web sites from Federal regulations, but it was soundly defeated in the House. DeLay's office issued a statement in August saying that the amendment was "to exempt the Internet from the bill's draconian speech regulation."

"Under these new rules and regulations," the statement said, "individual voters wishing to express their views on the Internet, including e-mail, will have to register with the FEC to simply discuss political candidates."

But some argue that DeLay's approach was too broad and would have allowed unlimited spending on Internet campaign efforts, running counter to the goal of requiring more disclosure of the source and amount of money spent on campaigns.

"It sweeps far, far too broadly," said Don Simon, executive vice president of Common Cause, a political reform group. "It wipes out election law entirely for the Internet."

Simon described the DeLay amendment as a "poison pill" designed to create opposition to the campaign finance bill.

---

Related Sites
These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web, and The Times has no control over their content or availability.

• Federal Election Commission

• Center for Democracy and Technology

• Common Cause

---

Rebecca Fairley Raney at rfr@nytimes.com welcomes your comments and suggestions.

---