I was going to respond in detail to this New York Times article about the FEC’s potential regulation of blogs, but I see that Ed Morrissey has beat me to it.

Several Democratic FEC Commissioners are quoted in the article. They basically say that bloggers have nothing to worry about. What a relief! But hold on. Morrissey points out that the Commissioners “did not explicitly rule out regulation, and in fact Ellen Weintraub’s comments leave enough loophole room for a Mack truck.”

Here’s what Weintraub told the Times :

“People should not be alarmed,” said Ellen L. Weintraub, a Democratic commissioner.

“Given the impact of the Internet,” Ms. Weintraub said, “I think we have to take a look at whether there are aspects of that that ought to be subject to the regulations. But again, I don’t want this issue to get overblown. Because I really don’t think, at the end of the day, this commission is going to do anything that affects what somebody sitting at home, on their home computer, does….

Ms. Weintraub cautioned against jumping to conclusions, saying the goal was simply to address the Internet in some way. “We are looking at whether there is something short of a complete exemption for Internet activity,” she said.

Morrissey responds:

Weintraub wants people to relax, but that argument won’t fly. Having the authority to regulate the speech in the first place is what has us worried, and if Weintraub chooses not to use it, that’s fine. However, a precedent has been set that the FEC has that ability to determine whether online pamphleteering equates to campaign contributions — and notice that she’s careful not to eliminate that as a possible end solution.

Read the whole thing.

***

Related:

- Apple vs. bloggers
- How big is the FEC threat to blogs?
- The FEC vs. blogs

Update: Winfield Myers sums up Weintraub’s position this way:

Translation: We have the power to regulate you if we want to, and we’re going to move in on the Net in some way, at some time (no complete exemptions here, buster). But don’t worry — trust us with your sacred liberties — because we’re reasonable people. Besides, most of you don’t amount to anything, and we’re only going after the big guys.”