Commentary - There they go again, stifling free speech

Publication: The Examiner

Matt Tappscott
July 13, 2008

Congressman Michael Capuano probably means well – and Big Government enthusiasts always try to sound like they really do – but I've never met the man, so I don't know for sure.

What I do know for sure – because the Massachusetts Democrat said so himself - is Capuano thinks the rest of us are too stupid to figure out that a YouTube video of him or one of his esteemed Capitol Hill colleagues is not an endorsement of the commercial products or political candidates being sold in ads nearby on the site.

But don't take my word for it, here's what Capuano said: "Maybe they don't care if an official video appears next to a political advertisement for Barack Obama or John McCain, creating the appearance of an endorsement."

Capuano's "they" was the pack of howling Republicans protesting last week that, as chairman of the Congressional Commission on Mailing Standards, he was trying to turn his panel, which oversees official use of the congressional franking privilege, into an Internet censorship board. It wasn't just GOPers speaking out, as conservative bloggers and non-partisan transparency advocates like the Sunlight Foundation were also up in arms.

The brouhaha was sparked after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked Capuano and his fellow commissioners (two other Democrats and three Republicans) to look into the issue of what congressmen can and cannot post on the Internet in their official capacities.

Capuano reported back with proposed new rules (not supported by the three GOPers, by the way) that he said would require :

* "Official content posted on an external domain must be clearly identified as produced by a House office for official purposes, and meet existing content rules and regulations;

* "To the maximum extent possible, the official content should not be posted on a website or page where it may appear with commercial or political information or any other information not in compliance with the House's content guidelines."

Two things are crystal clear regarding Capuano's proposal. First, it all depends on how "official content" is defined and by whom. Second, said official content is barred from all Internet sites except those accepted as "in compliance." And somebody has to decide which sites comply.

This has all the earmarks of a classic Washington power grab. Somebody identifies a problem and asks Congress to do something about it. After the problem is "studied closely," new rules are proposed.

But new rules have to be interpreted, so congressional staffers – AKA as legislative bureaucrats – get expanded authority to administer the new rules. Then special interest groups line up to game the new rules for political advantage and executive branch empire builders seek their cut of the action. And so goes another expansion of the dead hand of government regulation.

Since Capuano worries most about apparent commercial and political endorsements, here's a better solution: Remember those "Warning: The FBI will come take you away if you violate our copyright" screens that briefly appear at the beginning of rented movie DVDs?

Instead of a new congressional Internet censorship regimen, how about simply requiring all internet video posting of official content by congressmen to include a 30 second screen warning: "This video is NOT an official endorsement of any product or candidate."

Don't hold your breath waiting for such a simple solution, though, because the default position of most politicians in both political parties is to expand government. It makes them more powerful and important.

Oh, they have lots of clichéd rationalizations to obscure their expansionistic egos. My favorite is the one that we need more bureaucrats, higher taxes and increased red tape because the world is getting so complex.

Does nobody ever wonder if maybe that's because politicians keep making it so?

Reminds me of Ronald Reagan's great question from his first inaugural: "But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"