The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is holding a public comment hearing on Wednesday to help it determine whether to move forward with new rules to regulate online political speech - rules that could restrict first amendment rights and threaten privacy.
"This could have a huge impact on free and low-cost online political speech," the Electronic Frontier Foundation warned, "especially if new regulations place complicated and burdensome record-keeping and disclosure requirements on bloggers, YouTube posters, or other online speakers, including those who post anonymously."
FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel, along with a number of Democrats, have indicated that they would like to change how people and organizations can spend political money on the internet, implementing similar disclosure requirements as are required for television ads.
This week's hearing is in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC last year which said the FEC could not cap aggregate campaign contributions from a single donor in an election cycle, reported CNSNews.
Prior to that ruling, individuals were limited to donating a combined total of $46,200 to federal candidates, and $70,800 to federal political action committees and parties.
Chief Justice John Roberts said those limits "intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise 'the most fundamental First Amendment activities.'"
Individuals can now contribute "up to $2,600 per election to a federal candidate, $10,000 per calendar year to a state party committee, $32,400 per calendar year to a national party committee, and $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC," according to the FEC.
Back in 2005, the FEC imposed rules that only applied to paid advertisements from political campaigns, parties and PACs.
But now, First Amendment advocates like the EEF are warning that lawmakers would like to impose additional and much broader restrictions that could significantly hamper constitutional rights.
In a statement released last October, Ravel shed light on her reasoning: "Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed on the Internet alone. As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense."
The EEF has warned that the FEC isn't cut out for the job, saying that giving a politically appointed government board the right to regulate such matters could harm free speech.
"We do not have confidence that a politically appointed government board will be able to draw a line that separates the individual blogger or YouTuber from deep-pocketed special interest groups without damaging free speech."
"Increased regulation of online speech is not only likely to chill participation in the public debate, but it may also threaten individual speakers' privacy and right to post anonymously. In so doing, it may undermine two goals of campaign finance reform: protecting freedom of political speech and expanding political participation."
