The FEC vs. blogs controversy has been overshadowed by other news the past week or two, but Mike Krempasky of Redstate has an important update:

To step back a moment, remember – on March 3rd, Commissioner Bradley Smith warned of some real potential problems with the upcoming rulemaking process. In return for ringing the alarm bell, he was dismissed as a crank, a partisan, an ideologue – and most of all, just plain wrong. The FEC would NEVER do something like regulate bloggers – heavens no! It’s inconceivable.

Well, I don’t think that word means what they think it means.

And now, we can prove that 1) Smith was right, and then some, 2) Had Smith not rung that bell, we may well have regretted it, 3) those on the FEC that criticized smith and told bloggers, in effect, to “chill out” weren’t being honest with us and 4) the FEC should be viewed with the highest suspicion throughout this regulatory process.

He can prove it? How?

Krempasky explains: “RedState has received a copy of that draft (.pdf only) – the Commission’s first attempt to craft a rule. And I can say – not only was Brad Smith right about the possible problems – the first draft was worse than he predicted.”

Read the whole post.

Update: James Joyner comments:

because Smith sounded the alarm and a lot of bloggers thereby got wind up what was happening before it became finalized, the current version [of the FEC's proposed regulations] is much tamer. Still, the idea that a personal website, uncoordinated with any candidate’s campaign, could be considered a political contribution simply because of opinions expressed on it, is as frightening as it is absurd.