Part-time Pundit takes on Daily Kos

John Bambenek a.k.a. "Parttime Pundit" said last week he had a secret project he was almost ready to unveil.  The Champaign resident contends that since the leftwing Daily Kos blog works as an arm of the Democratic party, they should be subject to the Federal Election Commission's regulations. 

Bambenek's letter to the FEC is here. Download fec-dailykos.pdf

John may be right.  But if he is, then the Chicago Sun-Times and their suburban affiliate dailies should all be subject to the FEC's regs. 

Brilliant timing . . . Just days before the YearlyKos convention meets at Chicago's McCormick Place.  This could be very interesting. . .

A letter from John was published Monday in Blogcritics.org:

Today I filed an Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint against Kos Media, LLC., better known as DailyKos.com. I allege that they operate as a political committee and are therefore subject to FEC rules.

I first thought of this complaint during the Cindy Sheehan debacle over at Daily Kos, where Cindy pledged to run as an independent against Nancy Pelosi, and the Daily Kos basically turned on her. While some conservatives took great delight in this, I really didn't care because it's politics as usual. The right has thrown their fair share of people under the bus for not drinking the Kool-aid too.

Link: Should the DailyKos be Subject to the Federal Election Commission?.

Comments

[Bob Schmidt]

There are many expressions of freedom of speech and freedom of press that are in lock step with a political party or candidate.

Other than to maybe require full disclosure (of the type Zahm wants from anonymous), extending the power of the FEC to regulate speech and press sounds like a bad idea.

[Skeeter]

This is interesting.

I thought conservatives were AGAINST frivolous lawsuits.

[John Bambenek]

It's not a lawsuit.

[Inside Expert]

Bob, I'm with you on disclosure but with this caveat--that public expenditure of funds and incumbent office holders be disclosed. Franking, Organ donor ads, etc. Private expenditures or private identities need not be disclosed because they are voluntarily involved. Not so with public tax funds.

(My own purpose in not revealing my identity is to show that some, in this case the Lauzen supporters, can't handle the truth, and have a double standard.)

I an with you also on the bad idea of extending the power to the FEC to regulate speech. Just because I may disagree with Daily Koos is no excuse. They disagree with us, so on what principled ground could we oppose their complaining against us?

It's kind of like kids getting into a fight, and the loser cries out for his big brother to come and beat up on the other kid. Or like someone going to court in election spats, as Lauzen and Zahm have done.

It's not necessary when you have truth on your side.

[Jerry]

I don't know that this is "extending the power of the FEC", which I do not support. It sounds more like pointing out to the FEC that they are missing most of the culprits, and speaking of which I can give them the names of three or four dozen African American church congregations that function as a branch of the DNC, also.