State Election Enforcement Commission FAIL

The staff at the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) has just told me that they consider the use of this site and other social networking websites, like Facebook, to be campaign expenditures.

For the record, the SEEC staff are completely wrong. They want me to write this, "Paid for by O'Brien for State Representative, Emy Vasquez-Skene, Treasurer. Approved by Tim O'Brien" on this site. However, let's be clear, this site is NOT paid for by O'Brien for State Representative because it costs nothing to use.

On the surface, this might not sound like such a big deal, but the implications of this silly, nit-picky misinterpretation by SEEC could be far reaching.

But first, a bit of background...

Our state's campaign finance law is built around the definitions of two important terms "contribution" and "expenditure". So important are these legal definitions that each of these words is given its own section of the state laws to elaborate on its meaning - section 9-601a for "contribution" and 9-601b for "expenditure". These terms are important because something is only regulated by our state's campaign finance laws if, and only if, that something falls within the definition of either "contribution" or "expenditure" (or both). Some of the campaign finance laws require "paid for by" attributions, some require reporting in legal filings at the SEEC and others tell you what you can and cannot do. But if something does not count as either a "contribution" or a "expenditure", that something is exempt from the campaign finance laws.

There is good reason for this. Campaign finance laws are designed to prevent the corruption or perceived corruption of elected government through large campaign contributions or expenditures. The idea is that elected officials maybe are, but certainly could be perceived to be, in the pockets of someone who donated or spent a lot of money to get them elected. Thus, campaign finance laws regulate money spent in campaigns - and they are not supposed to regulate anything else. So giving money or something of value to a campaign is supporting a campaign financially and it may count as a "contribution", and spending money or using something of value by or on behalf a campaign is also supporting a campaign financially and may count as an "expenditure".

By the way, in the legal justification for campaign finance laws, the word large is important. Small amounts of money do not affect election outcomes and, in any case, the Supreme Court in Buckley vs. Valeo clearly pointed out that it was large amounts of campaign money that justified campaign funding regulations. Plus, campaign finance laws, like all laws, are not meant to apply to small, nit-picky things. That is why there is a general legal precept called de minimis, which means something that is "so small or minimal in difference that it does not matter or the law does not take it into consideration."

Now, let us look at how the new world of free internet services fit into this...

Free internet services have blossomed in recent years. Free internet services are just that, free for anyone to use. The companies that run them offer their various services free for users for their own business reasons, including advertising, but for people who create accounts at and use these services, there is no cost.

This blog exists on such a free internet service, called Blogger. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and many other social networking sites are free internet services or offer a free version of their service, like the one I use for my site "Tim O'Brien's Online Community" and my campaign website. Even web mail services such as GMail, Yahoo Mail and Hotmail are free internet sites, as well, because they cost users nothing to send and receive e-mail through them.

Now, let us take the case of someone (even a candidate for office) who uses a free internet service - say, Facebook - to express their opinion about who should be elected. Because this person is not charged any money by Facebook for using their services, this user is not expending any money and therefore their use of Facebook does not count under section 9-601b as an "expenditure". Even though Facebook does spend money maintaining their service, Facebook is only deemed to be making a "contribution" if the amount they charge the user to use their services is less than what they would charge anyone else. Since the amount Facebook charges anyone is $0, the $0 charged to the person expressing their point of view about the elections is no discount, and therefore their use of Facebook also does not count as a "contribution" under section 9-601a.

Since this person's use of Facebook is neither an expenditure nor a contribution, the use of Facebook by anyone, including candidates for office, is not regulated under our state's campaign finance laws.

The SEEC staff counter that the use of free internet services for the expression of political opinions are still regulated under campaign finance laws because, to access these websites, you still have to the use of your home computer  and internet service, which both cost money. But they are still dead wrong on this account, too. The state laws, in subsections 9-601a(b)(5) and 9-601b(b)(6) explicitly exempt "[t]he use of real or personal property ... voluntarily provided by an individual to a candidate or on behalf of a state central or town committee, in rendering voluntary personal services for candidate or party-related activities at the individual's residence...". So, any use of your own computer in your own home is exempt from the campaign finance laws - including accessing Facebook. So again, SEEC is wrong.

Even if the exemptions in subsections 9-601a(b)(5) and 9-601b(b)(6) did not apply, how much, really, of an expense can the use of your home computer to use Facebook really be? Pennies? Fractions of pennies? Plus, you would have had your computer and internet service anyway, so there is no increase in cost to you because you used your home computer to access Facebook. In either case, the precept of de minimis - that these "costs", even if they do exist, are too small to think about - clearly applies, and Elections Enforcement should have the common sense not to apply the entirety of the regulations in our election laws to things that have nothing to do with the kind of large expenditures that are the whole purpose of our campaign finance laws in the first place.

The problems with this mis-interpretation of law are many...

Perhaps the SEEC's goal is simply to require that all websites operated by candidates and their campaigns to have a "Paid for by..." statement. But it is both incorrect and silly to require candidates to say that their campaigns "paid for" something that they did not, in fact, pay for. And the bigger problem is that, if SEEC considers a website with a "paid for by" statement for one candidate to be that one of that candidate's campaign websites, then then it would be illegal to use that website to support any other candidate without that candidate's campaign paying a pro-rated share of the cost.

So, for example, if I put on my Facebook profile, "Paid for by O'Brien for State Representative, Emy Vasquez-Skene, Treasurer. Approved by Tim O'Brien", that Facebook profile might be considered a website for my campaign committee. If I then subsequently write a "wall post" on my profile that asks people to vote for my favorite candidate for governor, SEEC staff actually told me that I would have to put the "paid for by" attribution for that candidate on my Facebook profile. But what about the pro-rated share of the cost? And what cost? $0.0001?

I also asked SEEC staff how this rule would affect people who are not candidates for office - the general public. Their answer is that using free internet services like Facebook to advocate in favor of or against a candidate would count as small "independent expenditures" - meaning that SEEC still was suggesting that private individuals would be making regulated campaign expenditures under the laws just by using their Facebook accounts. They did suggest that these might count as very small "independent expenditures" that would not require attribution and legal reporting, but using this "independent expenditure" exemption places the burden on the private individual using their Facebook (or other social networking) account to prove that they had no connection with the candidate they were speaking in favor of. Otherwise, they would still have to put the "paid for by" statement for the candidate they wrote in favor of on their Facebook profile. SEEC staff did say that they did not think that this attribution rule should apply to campaign volunteers but could not give a good reason why, since they interpreted that the use of social networking sites counted as campaign expenditures and there is nothing in the definition of "expenditure" that treats expenditures by candidates differently from expenditures by anyone else.

Then there is Twitter. Twitter "tweets" can only be 140 characters long, not words, characters. My "paid for by" attribution statement is 96 characters long, even without punctuation. That leaves only 44 characters for me to actually say anything. Here is a little experiment to see how far 44 character goes: "Let's see how much I can write before I use ". And that is it, 44 characters. Is this really what SEEC wants to do? Really?

There is good reason why free internet services, and social networking sites like Facebook, should be exempt from campaign finance law. If the interpretation the SEEC means to apply here stands, unnecessary rules and regulations could make it harder or even impossible for everyday people to use the great promise that the internet offers for democracy. For the past several decades, the high costs of mass media - mainly television - have made expressing political opinions too costly for the average person to afford. But the internet offers the promise of free communication that can, at least in part, replace the expensive communication that can only be afforded by the wealthy and large corporations.

The laws of our state do, in fact, exempt the use of these free internet services from regulation. And that is a good thing that should be defended. If it is not, it is foreseeable that private individuals will have to ply through red tape, file reports and post "paid for by" notices when all they want to do is write their opinions on the internet on a site that does not charge them for doing it.

In conclusion...

The good and orderly application of the laws of the state require that we have a State Elections Enforcement Commission that exercises common sense in applying the laws. The election laws are written to give SEEC a lot of discretion so that they can exercise common sense in making sure that the real purpose of campaign finance law is fulfilled. That purpose, again, being to prevent the adverse impact of large amounts of private money in the political process, NOT to nit-pick infinitesimally small or non-existent amounts of money so that they can get their hooks into regulating people's free speech (the kind that actually is free).

This matter is just one example of how our SEEC has been choosing cumbersome nit-picking beyond their legal charge instead of exercising the common sense that is in their charge. SEEC has had propensity to not think through how their interpretations and mis-interpretations of our state's election laws can make it cumbersome for people to express their opinions and participate in the political process - all too often making our laws harmful rather than helpful to democracy by making it harder for everyday people to participate than for people with a lot of money at their disposal.

It does not have to be this way. The State Elections Enforcement Commission does an admirable job in many ways.  I implore them to take a step back, think about the implications of the way they do things, and bring a little more common sense to the job.

By the way, this message, though I am not legally required to say so, is, in fact, approved by Tim O'Brien. But it is not paid for by O'Brien for State Representative, Emy Vasquez-Skene, Treasurer.

The State House should not have voted to legalize unlimited corporate campaign spending.

The State House of Representatives should not have voted to legalize, under the laws of our state, unlimited, direct corporate spending to influence elections.

Unfortunately that is exactly what it did on Saturday evening.

At issue was state legislation designed to be the state's response a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.  In a previous post, I described why this Supreme Court decision was so wrong...

...the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision that grants large corporations - including corporations from foreign countries - a nearly unlimited ability to use massive amounts of money to directly control our election process - handing massive power to the very corporate special interests that caused the economic meltdown that we are struggling to lift our nation out of today.

Most of the bill approved by the State House was sound - requiring disclosure in corporate and union independent campaign expenditures of what corporation or union did the spending and requiring CEOs to openly approve the ads for which their corporations pay. These requirements are not very strong, in that it will be easy for corporate attorneys to find ways to use shell corporations and clever accounting to hide what corporations are really doing the spending on political ads.  However, these rules are better than nothing.

The part of the legislation that is the real problem is in sections 7 and 8 of the bill.  For example, section 7 says:

Sec. 7. Section 9-613 of the general statutes is amended by adding subsection (g) as follows (Effective from passage):

(NEW) (g) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a corporation, cooperative association, limited partnership, professional association, limited liability company or limited liability partnership, whether formed in this state or any other, acting alone, may make independent expenditures.

This overtly makes the laws of the State of Connecticut agree with the Supreme Court's decision to legalize unlimited corporate spending to buy control of elections.  Doing this is just, plain wrong.

In the face of such an affront to democracy as this Supreme Court decision, I strongly believe that our state must do whatever is possible to expose this decision as wrong and press for its immediate reversal.  Keeping the ban on direct corporate and union spending on election campaigns in the laws of our state is essential to maintaining that stand against the Supreme Court's decision.

It is not possible to underestimate just how bad this Supreme Court decision is - not just the decision, itself, but the fact that it sets forth the policy of the Supreme Court to strike down laws that protect democracy and free speech for average, everyday Americans in favor of a distorted alternative that corrupts our democracy by letting powerful interests literally buy control of government.

I had hoped to persuade for changes in this legislation before it was brought before the full House of Representatives.  When that did not happen, I attempted to offer an amendment to the bill to remove sections 7 and 8.  This would have made the legislation stronger - requiring minimal disclosure of corporate political spending, but maintaining our state's statutory ban on this corporate control of elections.  Unfortunately, I was barred from bringing my amendment to the floor of the House of Representatives.

While this is truly disappointing, I am heartened that most Americans - Democrats, independents and Republicans - agree that this Supreme Court decision is wrong for our nation (from the Washington Post):

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

Hopefully, the people of our great nation will press for the change needed to turn back the terrible affront to democracy that this Supreme Court decision is, and restore the value that democracy belongs to the people.

Democracy must count more than special interest money.

As you probably have heard, the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision that grants large corporations - including corporations from foreign countries - a nearly unlimited ability to use massive amounts of money to directly control our election process - handing massive power to the very corporate special interests that caused the economic meltdown that we are struggling to lift our nation out of today.

This decision is hugely damaging to our democracy.  The founders of our country recognized that the free-flow of news, opinions and information among the people is vital to a fully functioning democracy.  That is why they specifically wrote, right into our Constitution, protection of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and other rights for all people in our country.  They knew that you can only have government by, of and for the people when average, everyday people can freely share and receive news, opinions and information from other average, everyday people.  On the other hand, when powerful interests hold all the rights to control the flow of news, opinions and information, they control society.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has, over the years, been distorting the first of our basic Constitutional rights - freedom of speech - to grant interests with large amounts of money at their disposal the unfettered ability to use this wealth to control public discussion about elections and the decisions our elected officials are making - undermining the very protection for average, everyday people that freedom of speech is supposed to ensure.  They did this by saying that the money that someone might spend communicating their opinion has the same constitutional protection as the opinion itself.  In other words, they essentially declared that money is speech and that spending money to influence elections and government decisions has the same constitutional protection as words coming from your mouth or words that you write in an e-mail.

The Supreme Court roundly ignored the fact that they took freedom of speech, which is supposed to be a right held equally by all, and distorted it into a privilege that you get more of the more money you have and less of the less money you have.  And with the ability to buy more "speech", those who control large amounts of money can and do exercise so much control over the flow of news, opinions and information that they are able to effective squeeze out the news, opinions and information coming from average, everyday people.  And this makes the fears of the founders of our nation come true.

The worst aspect of the fact that the Supreme Court is has extended, to moneyed interests, a constitutional right to control the control the flow of news, opinions and information is that, even if average, everyday people can get their elected officials to approve laws limiting the influence of money in politics, the Supreme Court will strike those laws down as "unconstitutional".

What the Supreme Court did in the most recent decision is to strip away one of the last, great protections for everyday people in our national campaign financing laws - the one that said that corporations are not allowed to directly spend to influence elections.  Even with this protection, big money special interests were still very powerful.  But this decision will open the floodgates to special interest money and increase their dominance over the elections that are supposed to belong to we, the people.

There are solutions to this, and Connecticut is already in the lead in finding them.  Our Citizen Election System allows people to run for state office free of special interest money.  It is a good solution, and Congress and every state should approve similar legislation.  It, too, has been under challenge in the courts, but I am working right now to adjust it enough so that it will continue maintaining our democracy.

I am also proposing legislation to directly deal with challenges created by the "Citizens United" decision.  This legislation, the Saving Democracy Act, would:

• Ban foreign corporations from using their money to influence elections in Connecticut (local, state or federal) - presuming that a corporation is a foreign corporation unless it can certify that at least 80% of its shares are owned by natural persons who reside in the United States (in the case of stock corporations) or that at least 80% of its voting members are natural persons who reside in the United States (in the case of nonstock corporations).
• Ban corporations from using their money to influence elections in Connecticut (local, state or federal) if they - or another corporation that is a part of the same conglomerate - get any benefit from the state - including tax breaks, incentives, public contracts (of the state or municipalities) or recognition in this state as corporations (including as out of state corporations operating in Connecticut).
• Ban any corporation - or another corporation that is a part of the same conglomerate - that has used its corporate money to influence any election in Connecticut (local, state or federal) in the previous twelve months from getting any benefit from the state or any municipality - including tax breaks, incentives, public contracts or recognition in this state as a corporation (including as an out of state corporation operating in Connecticut).
• Ban any corporation from using its money to influence elections in Connecticut (local, state or federal) unless doing so is expressly made a purpose of the corporation in its corporate bylaws - enacted by least a two-thirds vote of its shareholders (in the case of stock corporations) or at least two-thirds of its voting members (in the case of nonstock corporations). In the case of a corporation that is a part of a conglomerate, this two-thirds vote refers to the corporate entity in the conglomerate with the greatest number of shareholders.
• Ban political spending in Connecticut by any corporation - or another corporation that is a part of the same conglomerate - that employs or contracts with any state or federal lobbyists.
• Require that any corporation using its money to influence elections or public policy in Connecticut (state or federal) disclose it to the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

I am working right now to get the legislature's Government Administrations and Elections Committee to take up this legislation.  I sincerely hope that it will.

If you use Facebook, feel free to visit the online group in support of the Saving Democracy Act.

This is a challenging time in many different ways, and the challenge going on right now against our democracy is one of the most important.  For the good of our country, and its future, I hope democracy will prevail.

Facing the rising sun of our new day begun

We have many challenges before us and much work to do.

But this day, with the inauguration of President Barack Obama, we should remind ourselves of the hope for a better future that our nation made possible this past November.  Today, we embark on a new direction.  And we should remind ourselves the momentousness of the corner we have turned - a moment that was made possible by the hopeful optimism that was carried over generations in our country...

Lift every voice and sing,

'Til earth and heaven ring,

Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;

Let our rejoicing rise

High as the listening skies,

Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.

Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us,

Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us;

Facing the rising sun of our new day begun,

Let us march on 'til victory is won.

"Lift Every Voice and Sing"
by James Weldon Johnson and John Rosamond Johnson
sung by the Soul Children of Chicago.

I am so proud of our country.

And now on to building a better future!

Herald, Newington Town Crier and Bristol Press Saved!

It looks like our efforts to make sure that we do not lose our hometown daily newspapers has paid off:

With less than two weeks before staff at The Herald and The Bristol Press were scheduled to cover their keyboards and lock the doors for the final time, a last-minute buyer has appeared to save the newspapers.

Publisher Edward Gunderson announced Tuesday that Michael E. Schroeder, owner of Central Connecticut Communications, has entered into a letter of intent to buy the two daily papers. The sale, which should be complete within two weeks, includes three area weeklies: the Wethersfield Post, the Newington Town Crier and the Rocky Hill Post.  (New Britain Herald) 

There is also a report about this on BristolToday.

The loss of the New Britain Herald would have left the New Britain community without a hometown daily newspaper.  This would have been the last month, ever, that the Herald would publish.  That would have represented a real blow to New Britain. So I am very pleased that this has worked out.

I am also pleased that Mr. Schroeder has purchased the Newington Town Crier and other weekly newspapers.  There was a lot of concern that the weekly newspapers would not be purchased, even if the dailies - the Herald and Press - were.

As we work to build a strong future for New Britain, it is essential that our city remain a regional center.  And an important part of that is having a daily newspaper of record.  We almost lost ours.  And I have proud to have been in a position to help keep it.

Possibilities for saving our hometown newspapers.

Yesterday, other officials and I met with state Economic and Community Development Commissioner Joan McDonald regarding our efforts to keep the New Britain Herald, Bristol Press and weekly newspapers from closing.  This was the follow-up to the previous meeting we has with the Commissioner.

The newspapers are owned by the Journal Register Company (JRC), which has said that it will close the newspapers very shortly if they are not purchased.  I worked to organize area legislators to bring attention to this situation and seek the assistance of the Commissioner in the hopes that one or more buyers would take ownership of the papers and keep them open.

After hearing the Commissioner's report on her work, I can say that I am pleased with her efforts and that of her department.  They actively informed potential buyers of the fact that the newspapers were for sale and let them know about state assistance that is available to businesses that have a good plan to preserve jobs in the state.

Between efforts of the Department and the publicity, there are now potential buyers looking into purchasing the newspapers:

...McDonald said she sent out 16 letters to perspective buyers in the newspaper industry. ... Since the Dec. 10 letter went out McDonald said her office has received one response from the letter, one from the news reports of the meeting, one referral from state Rep. Tim O’Brien, D-New Britain, and two referrals from Dirks, Van Essen and Murray, the brokerage firm from New Mexico retained by the Journal Register Co. to manage the sale of the papers.  (CTNewJunkie)  

Connecticut's economic development commissioner told local and state officials Monday that her office received responses from five media companies that may be interested in buying some or all the daily and weekly newspapers put up for sale by the Journal Register Publishing Co.  (AP - printed in The Day) 

This is a Channel 61 story about this:

(Just a note of correction: It was the Commissioner who sent the letters to the prospective buyers.)

So we now have potential buyers.  At this point, things are in the hands of the newspapers' current owner and their prospective owners.

Time to revisit my proposal for democratic elections of Senators

Two years ago, I introduced legislation, House Bill 5034 , which proposed that there be special elections when there is a vacancy in a U.S. Senate seat representing Connecticut.  Like most states, Connecticut law provides that the Governor choose a member of the Senate when someone leaves that office, and the Governor's selected person stays there until the next regular election - for as long as two full years.

My proposal was simple - let the people decide who represents them.  It is already the process we use to fill a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives when someone leaves that office.  There is no good reason for why the process for filling vacancies in the U.S. Senate should be any different.

In fact, my reason for proposing this legislation was that, the previous year, as Vice-Chair of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, I worked on some technical, but important, changes in the law affecting special elections for U.S. House.  While I was doing this work, I found it peculiar that there was a completely different area of law concerning U.S. Senate vacancies - with a very different, and much less democratic process.  There was not time to take this issue up that year, but I decided I would bring it up again.  That was where 2007 HB 5034 came from.

At the time, people who favored the idea that Gov. Rell should be able to choose a U.S. Senator, herself, opposed my proposal.  There were a lot of unfair, unreasonable and, frankly, partisan accusations made about what should have been seen as a common-sense idea to replace an archaic and silly system with a law that would let the people choose who represents them in the Senate of the United States.  Neither HB5034 nor a similar bill considered last year were approved against this unfortunate partisan backdrop.

However, the terrible scandal involving Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich shows that my proposal should be re-considered this year and approved.  As an article in the New York Times shows, Gov. Blagojevich's apparent attempt to use his sole power to name a Senator as an opportunity to make money for himself is only the latest in a long history of problems that are caused by governors having this power.

As Carl Hulse, for the Times, points out,

Given the prestige of a Senate seat and its magnetic allure to politicians, it is perhaps not surprising that when these vacancies come up, the process of awarding the office has become fraught with malfeasance and political peril.

In the same Times article, Thomas E. Mann of the Brookings Institution had this to say:

“These temporary appointments have often been subject to abuse or tacky behavior,” said Mr. Mann, adding, “I suspect this will lead a number of states to dispense with the temporary appointments and go directly to a special election.”

I suspect Mr. Mann is correct that states will soon begin replacing this silly old, problem-laden system with democracy.  Connecticut should start this trend by approving the legislation I proposed.

I certainly plan to propose it again.

---

Update December 15th:

Thanks to Genghis Conn at Connecticut Local Politics for his blog post in support of this proposal.

Also, I offer my thanks for the kind words at NBPoliticus.

To further bolster the need for this, here are some notes about what Republicans in Illinois are doing on this issue (from AP writer Christopher Wills):

The GOP also plans to run television ads pressuring Democrats to approve a special election ... Illinois Republican Party chairman Andy McKenna told reporters the ads will "make the point that this is the people's seat, and the people deserve a special election."

If it is a good idea in Illinois, it is in every state, including Connecticut.

Meeting on keeping the Herald and other papers from closing.

This morning legislators representing New Britain, Bristol, Newington and other towns, as well as Gary Friedle, Chairman of the New Britain Downtown District, met with state Economic and Community Development Commissioner Joan McDonald to discuss the economic development assistance that could be appropriate to find new owners for the New Britain Herald, the Bristol Press and 11 weekly newspapers.

As I wrote previously, I am very concerned about harm that New Britain would experience, both in our economy and our community life, if we did not have a daily newspaper based in our city.  The other New Britain legislators, Sen. Don DeFronzo, Rep. John Geragosian, Rep. Peter Tercyak and Rep. Betty Boukus, share these concerns.  The legislators representing Bristol and the towns covered by weeklies, including the Newington Town Crier, agree.

It was very important that Gary Friedle joined us at the meeting to discuss the concern we share about the negative effect that losing our daily newspaper could have on New Britain's businesses and economy.  He advocated very well for our city.

The meeting was very productive and I am pleased with the proactive approach that the Commissioner is taking.  I offer her and the Governor my thanks for their assistance.

We will be meeting again in a couple of weeks to talk about any progress.

New Britain should have a local newspaper.

Yesterday, New Britain and Bristol legislators sent a joint letter to the state Commissioner of Economic and Community Development, Joan McDonald asking for her assistance in finding a way to keep the New Britain Herald and the Bristol Press from closing down.

Representative-Elect Chris Wright of Bristol added his voice to these efforts.

The founders of our country considered having a free press as essential to democracy.  I think we need to keep that tradition and maintain that value to keep democracy alive and well.

Naturally, the Internet is changing the way people get their news, and I do not think anyone really knows what news media will look like in the future as a result.  So far, the Internet has expanded participation in the democratic process.  People are taking a direct role in getting news and creating it.  Most newspapers have online editions, now, and it may well be that paper editions of newspapers will disappear completely.  But people are also taking a direct role in news, as with blogs and social networking sites.

But I also know that there are many things that a community loses when it is not home to its own daily newspaper.  A daily newspaper is a central community forum, a place for local businesses to advertise and where major events in ordinary people's lives are recorded (like in marriage announcements and obituaries).

If New Britain loses the Herald, I am concerned that we may have nothing to fully replace the role it has played in our community for so long.

Here are some news stories on our efforts:

• Legislators petition state for local papers (Herald, Nov. 26, 2008)  
  
• State Legislators Trying To Save Newspapers In Bristol, New Britain(Hartford Courant, Nov. 26, 2008) 

Message from bloggers on the "social networking site legislation".

I thought I would share an e-mail message that I received recently from a number of Connecticut's prominent bloggers on their concerns regarding the legislation that has been proposed to require regulation of "social networking websites".

This legislation would require that social networking websites keep children from creating accounts on these sites unless the parents of these children give their authorization. It is intended to protect children from online sexual predators.

The motive behind this legislation is good. However, I agree with the concerns raised by bloggers, which they summarize in their e-mail message to legislators:

We are writing to you today on the subject of House Bill 6981, "An Act Concerning Social Networking Internet Sites and Enforcement of Electronic Mail Phishing and Identity Theft Laws." Specifically, this letter addresses the Joint Favorable Substitute made after the public hearing date by the General Law Committee on March 8, 2007 - Attorney General Blumenthal's proposed additions concerning social networking internet sites, which are contained in Section 3 of the bill.

We are writing to request that you oppose the bill in its present form, as the proposed regulations of social networking sites:

-- cannot be consistently met by content providers,

-- will impact a far greater number of internet sites than intended, due to overly broad language in the definition of "social networking internet sites,"

-- will limit protected speech online, including the right to communicate and access information anonymously

By seeking to regulate a wide swath of internet communication in an effort to target crimes conducted in the physical world - namely, sexual violence against minors - HB 6981 will limit the ability of Connecticut residents to access information online, force non-commercial content providers to cease their online operations, and may have serious and unintended ramifications for internet-based commerce and communications of all kinds in- and outside the State of Connecticut.

If these concerns can be addressed through the amendment process, the bill - especially its provisions concerning electronic mail phishing and identity theft - may provide the Attorney General with appropriate legal authority to prosecute crimes conducted via the internet.

Additionally, it may be possible for the General Assembly to achieve the desired effect of the Sec. 3 provisions by formalizing a process by which parents are provided with the tools and information necessary to restrict their child's access to social networking websites. The Attorney General's office has been cultivating an educational program informally for several years, and it is our belief that establishing and funding a state program along the lines of this educational model would not only be the most successful method for protecting minors from contact with child predators online, but would fully protect the ability of adults to access information and communicate via the internet without additional and unintended interference by the state.

Our letter -- including a more thorough explanation of what we believe to be the technical and legal flaws in HB 6981 as written -- is enclosed with this email. Feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

The letter attached to the e-mail is a PDF (similar to this PDF), and it looks very similar to the discussion of the social networking sites legislation by mattw in this MLN post.

The problem with the social networking website legislation is that, to follow it, virtually all interactive websites would have to assume that every person wanting to participate in the site is a minor, unless that person can document that they are not. And that would mean (1) everyone would have to divulge personal information about themselves before they could participate in an interactive website and (2) anonymous participation on the web would essentially be outlawed.

As a case in point, the blog you are reading right now would seem to be affected by this. I would be banned from allowing people leave comments to my blog posts unless they tell me exactly who they are. I have not had a problem with people leaving (polite) anonymous comments on this blog because I think it encourages free speech.

But there are a lot more good reason why anonymous participation on the Internet is important to preserve, and the points in this comment from the MLN post are especially relevant:

HB 6981 doesn't take into account the variety of legitimate reasons why one might wish to communicate or access such information anonymously - security and identity theft concerns, or fear of stigmatization by internet users wishing to access sensitive medical, sexual, political, or cultural information. Even if a selective enforcement approach were used to exclude sites such as Amazon.com or Ebay.com from prosecution under HB 6981, websites which are designed primarily for "social networking" purposes are often used to solicit help or medical advice anonymously: for example, many private groups exist on MySpace.com and Facebook.com sponsored by rape crisis centers, cancer or AIDS support groups, and battered women/children's shelters, and the ability to contact and obtain information from such organizations privately and anonymously is enjoyed by many users of these forums.

There are ideas being considered at the Capitol that would help catch criminals who abuse children, including Internet predators. Catching actual criminals is a lot better way to protect children than creating new rules that would take away much of what is good about the Internet. As the MLN post points out:

The problem the General Assembly and the Attorney General are attempting to address is an important one: Connecticut's children interacting with other internet users - including possible child predators - without their parents' knowledge or consent. But in crafting a law to address this problem, you should take care to allow adults to communicate with other adults, and you should take care to protect the rights of free speech and free assembly - including anonymity and pseudonymity - enjoyed by minors and adults alike on the internet.

Legislation that might unintentionally outlaw blogs.

This is essentially the same thing that I wrote on the blog, 'My Left Nutmeg', in response to a very good commentary written and compiled by 'Maura' on proposed legislation concerning "social networking web sites" and the problems with it.

Here is the legislation that is in question (really just section 3 of House Bill 6981):

Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) As used in this section, "social networking web site" means an Internet web site containing profile web pages of members of the web site that include the name or nickname of such members, photographs placed on the profile web pages by such members, other personal information about such members and links to other profile web pages on social networking web sites of friends or associates of such members that can be accessed by other members or visitors to the web site. A social networking web site provides members of or visitors to such web site the ability to leave messages or comments on the profile web page that are visible to all or some visitors to the profile web page and may include a form of electronic mail for members of such web site.

(b) No owner or operator of a social networking web site shall allow a minor using a computer located in this state to create or maintain a profile web page on such web site without first obtaining the written permission of the minor's parent or guardian and without providing such parent or guardian access to such profile web page at all times.

(c) An owner or operator of a social networking web site shall adopt and implement procedures to utilize independently obtainable information to confirm the accuracy of personal identification information collected from members, parents and guardians at the time of registration on such web site.

(d) A violation of any provision of this section shall constitute an unfair trade practice under subsection (a) of section 42-110b of the general statutes. For purposes of this section, each day an owner or operator of a social networking web site fails to adopt and implement the procedures required under subsection (c) of this section shall constitute a separate and distinct violation.

It is not uncommon for legislators to vote to pass a bill through a committee with the understanding that it needs serious work before becoming law. That is what I did yesterday when I voted to pass this bill out of the Judiciary Committee. I privatively told Rep. Chris Stone, chair of the General Law Committee, which originated this bill, that I share concerns raised by Rep. Mike Lawlor, chair of the Judiciary Committee, that this legislation, as drafted, would seem to outlaw blogs - including, by the way, this one - and would tend to harm free speech in a number of important ways. I gave Rep. Stone the courtesy to allow him to try to address my concerns, but I still plan to oppose this bill in the full House of Representatives if these concerns are not addressed.

I spent some time yesterday trying to come up with a definition for "social networking web site" and other changes to whole section that would allow for the intention of the bill without impinging on free speech. And, I have to tell you, I am not sure it can be done.

The intention of this section 3 seems to boil down to protecting kids from predators on the Internet by preventing kids from creating MySpace-type accounts without their parents' permission, and to make it the websites' responsibility to enforce this.

As Maura alluded to, the problem with this is not just the question of whether kids should be allowed to create "social networking" profiles without their parents' permission. This biggest problem is that this...

No owner or operator of a social networking web site shall allow a minor using a computer located in this state to create or maintain a profile web page

...inherently requires website operators to assume that every prospective user of their site is a child unless they can document that they are not. This is one of those legislative proposals that often appear that look, at first glace, like it is targeted in the effect, but, when you think about it, you can see that it is really a rule affecting everyone, not just a certain few. And so, in reality, this provision would mean greater regulation of adult use of the Internet, as well as kids'. And that is without even getting into the free-speech rights that kids have, too.

After thinking about it a bit, I started to focus my attempt to create a definition on one that would narrow the meaning of "social networking web site" to ones that are intended to be exclusively about social companionship, while explicitly excluding sites that deal with commentary, news, arts, politics, etc. That would seem to exempt blogs and CT News Junkie. But there would still be much use of the internet that would unintentionally fall within the definition, so I started to add more and more exceptions to the definition. In the end, there had to be so many exceptions built into the legislation that it would probably have next to none of its intended effect.

I still have an open mind, but I tend to agree with Mike Lawlor that, a least right now, it seems unlikely that a workable definition can be drafted. If that is the case, the best thing that can be done would be simply remove section 3 from this bill, altogether.

Of course, the state does have a role in protecting children against predators on the Internet - arresting and prosecuting the predators - but that is a different subject.

As I alluded to when I spoke with Christine Stuart of CT News Junkie, the best thing parents can do to protect their kids is to do what I did. I recently helped my stepson to set up a blog for himself on Blogger - which hosts this blog. I did this because I want to encourage him to be creative. But, in so doing, I very clearly told him to never, never post his actual name, his phone number, address, e-mail address, photos of himself or anything else that could be used to identify who he is. And I told him not to allow his friends to do this on his blog, either. (And this reminds me that I should check it today to see that he is following these rules.) I also thought that, if I gave him a place on the Internet that I know about and can monitor, that this might discourage him from using MySpace - which, in any case, he thinks is an uncool website.

Anyway, this legislation may be an example of an idea with the best of intentions that just cannot work.

Older video - Campaign Finance Reform forum on March 20, 2006.

This is a bit older video, but I thought it would be a good way to get started with posting of videos on this blog.

Keep in mind that I was speaking after the legislature approved the historic Campaign Finance Reform law in 2005 and before the important changes were made - that I made the motion to approve in the House of Representatives - that made the law clearer and more workable.

I hope you find this interesting.