The rise of the Internet has changed the way we work and live. It has also begun to change our politics for the better, introducing new voices and ideas into struggles that were becoming stale and predictable. Who hasn’t read a blog or visited a political website? You’re here, so I won’t ask you.
Not everyone, however, likes new ideas and the political competition they foster. New ideas bring changes that threaten the political status quo. Sooner or later, Congress or a federal agency will try to assert control over speech on the Internet.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Tex.) and Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.) have introduced legislation to head off that power grab. This week, the House of Representatives will likely consider Hensarling’s Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606), which would alter federal election law to exclude Internet communications from the definition of “public communication.” In practice, the bill would complicate, if not prevent, government use of campaign finance law to control the Internet.
The combination of money and new technology threaten the powers-that-be. For example, in 1968, three candidates for the presidency–Eugene McCarthy, George Wallace and Richard Nixon–spent considerable sums on television advertising. It was the first time television had played such an important role throughout a presidential election.
The spending of those three candidates shook the status quo. McCarthy’s showing in the New Hampshire primary drove the incumbent president Lyndon Johnson out of the race. George Wallace ran well in the Democratic-party primaries and ultimately led one of the most successful third-party bids for the presidency. Nixon pulled off a narrow presidential victory by spending big on television.
By the time the 1968 elections were over, everyone on Capitol Hill understood that the new technology of television threatened the electoral status quo in Congress. So, right after the election, Congress began considering limits on TV spending. Those limits became law in 1972. The TV monster had been tamed, as one member of Congress put it.
History now seems ready to repeat itself. The Internet had a considerable effect on the 2004 election. Howard Dean used the technology to challenge the more established Democratic candidates. The eventual Democratic candidate, John Kerry, relied on the Internet to raise record sums. The Internet also fostered new entries into the political marketplace of ideas. Bloggers of all political stripes assessed and assailed their candidates and causes of choice. Their criticisms of CBS News and its faulty reporting on President Bush’s National Guard service ultimately drove Dan Rather from office. It is thus no wonder that politicians who are invested in the status quo would fear this new medium.
Fortunately, there is also reason for political interests to protect the freedom of the Internet. Neither of the major parties has a clear advantage in web fundraising. The Democrats, who usually support stricter campaign-finance regulations out of concern for the GOP’s superior fundraising skills, have shown real skill in raising funds through the Internet.
Of course, Democratic success might give the GOP a good reason to restrict political activities on the Internet. But most Republicans in the House have always opposed more regulation of campaign finance and supported free speech. Some 80 percent of House Republicans voted against McCain-Feingold in 2002. Now they face another moment of truth. Do they really mean what they said about protecting free speech? If so, here’s an easy and popular way to assure government will not control political activities in an emerging media.
The real threat to the Hensarling bill comes from a small number of vulnerable House Republicans who fear unregulated speech and unrestrained competition for their seats. A small minority with illegitimate interests should not hold sway in a matter of such importance like free speech on the Internet. The future danger to liberty is real, and the moment of choice is here. Will the House of Representatives rise to the occasion and protect speech on the Internet?
–John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute.