There is a storm brewing.

If you haven’t read this CNET story, check it out:

Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.
In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign’s Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate’s press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

Smith should know. He’s one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet

The blogosphere is going crazy with this one. Check out Michelle Malkin’s post on the subject, as of right now (6:45 am Friday) it has 51 trackback pings.

Tapscott links to his column from 2003 where he predicted this.

More from this article… it is a must read:

How about a hyperlink? Is it worth a penny, or a dollar, to a campaign?

I don’t know. But I’ll tell you this. One thing the commission has argued over, debated, wrestled with, is how to value assistance to a campaign.

And…

If Congress doesn’t change the law, what kind of activities will the FEC have to target?

We’re talking about any decision by an individual to put a link (to a political candidate) on their home page, set up a blog, send out mass e-mails, any kind of activity that can be done on the Internet.

Check out some of these other posts from around the country.

Instapundit
Ed Morrissey
Josh Clayborn, In the Agora.
Winfield Myers
Professor Bainbridge
Red State (and here)
Right Wing Nuthouse
Susanna Cornett
The Anchoress
Hennessy
Baronger
Decision ‘08
Ravenwood
Watching the Watchers
Buzz Machine
Say Uncle
Three Rounds Brisk
Ace
Boing Boing
Pundit Guy thinks the interviewee was playing to the blogosphere… and it worked.

Yes, it is a serious issue, but I think the alarm is sounding a bit louder than reality due to the nature of the debate. It’s a tactic pure and simple, and I think Commissioner Smith is playing it up - TO THE BLOGOSPHERE. He’d like nothing more than for bloggers to FREAK OUT over his little interview on CNet and create havoc. Then the FEC will be forced to bow to the pressure and continue the Internet exemption portion of the 2002 campaign finance law.

Daily KOS
MyDD
Okie on the Lam
Tributaries
Uncorrelated
BOP News
Eschaton
Protein Wisdom

UPDATE (3/5): Michelle has some new info this morning (and a new picture of herself!):

K. Daniel Glover of National Journal’s Technology Daily has published a story on the FEC vs. blogs controversy. You can’t read the article without a subscription, so I’m not going to bother with a link, but the article quotes three Democrats–FEC member Danny McDonald, FEC member Ellen Weintraub, and Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts–saying, basically, that people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Responses around the blogosphere include:

Rightwing Nuthouse is not taking comfort in the press release.

It’s not exactly comforting.

Here’s Glover on Democratic Commission member Danny McDonald:

He acknowledged that whether the law should apply to bloggers in any way most likely will be discussed, especially in light of Smith’s comments. But he added, “It’s all going to be aired publicly, and we’ll have a great discussion about what we should and shouldn’t do.”

I’m so happy to hear that if the law will apply to bloggers “in any way” McDonald reassuringly tells us that “it’s all going to be aired publicly and we’ll have a great discussion about what we should and shouldn’t do.”

Am I an idiot or does that sound like regulation to you? To even suggest that there are things “we should do” only proves there are some Commissioners who would seek to regulate blogs.

Red State links to what Trevor Potter wrote in The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook (pdf).

Political Web Sites Maintained By Individuals
An individual may participate in political activities over the Internet in countless ways but must be wary of the requirements and pitfalls associated with such activity. Thus, an individual may spend an unlimited amount of money creating a web site that discusses issues, legislation, and policy–and basically anything else provided it does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate–without subjecting herself to regulation by any federal election laws. She may instead spend an unlimited amount of money creating a web site expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, provided she does not coordinate with a federal candidate or the candidate’s campaign committee. In this case, however, the costs of creating and maintaining the web site are considered “expenditures,” which trigger reporting requirements to the FEC if they exceed $250. Finally, she may create a web site expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate in coordination with a federal campaign committee. Because she coordinated with a campaign, the costs are considered “in-kind contributions” and are counted against her annual contribution limit of $2,100 per candidate per election.

Democracy Project has some analysis of a press release by the Campaign Legal Center denying any threat to the Internet.

I fail to see how this refutes Bradley Smith’s charges. It admits that the court decision must be enforced, and that the FEC must “initiate a rulemaking to work out how to deal with different kinds of Internet political expenditures.” This is precisely Smith’s point: given the interconnectivity of the Internet, which after all is its strongest point, how will posts from different blogs, or email lists which are passed all around the Net, be spliced so as to ensure that free speech isn’t trampled?

It would take the wisdom of Solomon to split this baby, and I know I speak for many (even most) bloggers in saying that I trust neither the FEC, nor Mr. Potter’s lobbying firm, nor the U.S. Senate, nor any other body to decide what I may or may not write on this blog, or read on a blog written by anyone else. I charged yesterday that this represents an extension of McCain-Feingold into the blogosphere, and Mark Glaze’s press release only strengthens my conviction that I was correct. Why else turn to the very lawyers who’ve worked so closely to regulate political speech in the past in an effort to convince us that, after all, they only want to help us live clean lives.

Powerline’s Hindrocket:

This is on the list of things that just aren’t going to happen. Which is not to say that the present regime of campaign finance regulation (that is to say, “free speech regulation”) under McCain/Feingold isn’t an abomination and an affront to free speech. It is.

And LaShawn Barber has joined in as well. The one thing she posts which I haven’t seen elsewhere on this subject is an article by a Blogger employee discussing blogs as “electronic serials” - possibly creating a press exemption for them. There is no way it will get that far.

And in fact, the court doesn’t think so:

A California judge said in a preliminary ruling that bloggers should not have the same protection afforded to journalists under US law.

Kevin at Wizbang:

That [David Mason’s 2002 Testimony] ought to send a chill down the spine of the larger and more well organized political advocacy blogs and web sites. Clearly this is something the FEC has been thinking about for many years.

What is so odd about Mason’s current stand (as relayed by Smith) is that it is in opposition to the majority of his 2002 testimony.