The Honorable Vernon Ehlers
Chairman, House Administration Committee
1714 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC

The Honorable Juanita Millender-McDonald
Ranking Member, House Administration Committee
2445 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC

Re: H.R. 1606, The Online Freedom of Speech Act

Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:

On behalf of the ACLU, a non-partisan organization with hundreds of thousands of activists and members and 53 affiliates nationwide, we write in support of H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act. The ACLU has long supported Internet free speech. The Internet is an egalitarian communications medium, allowing virtually anyone to be a “town crier.” Because political speech is at the core of First Amendment protection, Congress should not regulate it, but rather should encourage it. H.R. 1606 maintains the status quo by excluding from the definition of “public communications” communications over the Internet.

To those who claim the bill will “open gaping soft-money loopholes,” it should be noted that H. R. 1606 merely preserves the status quo. The 2004 election was conducted with the Internet exemption in place, and none of the imagined horror stories occurred.[1]

The ACLU does not support proposals that would exempt Internet communications based upon the amount of money spent in any one year, or that would otherwise introduce regulation of the Internet. While such proposals are well-intended, they introduce more complexities and set the stage for further regulation of the Internet. The ACLU opposes such proposals for the following reasons:

v Such proposals assume regulation of the Internet is necessary. There has been no demonstration that such is the case. Without a demonstrated record of corruption, the only basis for regulation of political speech on the Internet is speculation that such harms might occur in the future. Such speculation is insufficient when it comes to regulating free speech on the Internet.

v Proposals that exempt certain activity from the definition of public communications only so long as certain financial thresholds are unmet concede that political activity on the Internet is a regulated activity like any other. Additionally, how much money might have been spent and whether it exceeds the specified thresholds is itself a regulated activity, open to investigation upon complaint.

The 2004 elections saw the Internet being used in many new and innovative ways. No doubt it will continue to evolve as long as it is unimpeded by the heavy hand of government regulation. Because there is no demonstrable reason for changing the status quo we urge you to support H.R. 1606.

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson
Director

Marvin J. Johnson
Legislative Counsel

cc: House Administration Committee Members
Rep. Jeb Hensarling