mr. speaker , i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time . 
i rise in strong support of h.r. 1606 , the online freedom of speech act . 
my bill is a simple one . 
it is only one sentence long . 
it achieves one goal , but that goal is a worthy one : the protection of free speech on the internet . 
without this legislation , i fear that the cold , callous , and clumsy hand of federal regulation may stifle political speech in cyberspace . 
recently , we know the federal judiciary ruled that , absent our congressional action , the fec must regulate this form of speech , even though the fec clearly does not want to . 
the newest battlefield in the fight to protect the first amendment is the internet . 
today , the internet is free from fec regulation . 
clearly , it should remain that way . 
the internet is a marketplace of ideas that welcomes all participants on equal footing . 
it is extremely cheap . 
in fact , if one has access to the internet at home or a public library , it can be free , absolutely free . 
a web site 's success is driven by the quality of its content , not the quantity of funds that are poured into it . 
it is one of the most democratic forms of speech that we know today , and it is an outstanding opportunity for all individuals across our nation to participate in our democratic process and impact public policy . 
the internet , mr. speaker , is the new town square ; and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there . 
not only would such regulation be a nightmare to administer and enforce , it would place complex responsibility on ordinary citizens that would functionally restrict their political free speech and violate their first amendment rights . 
today , thousands and thousands of americans run blogs that are focused on politics , and millions of viewers visit their favorite bloggers ' web sites for commentary often not found in the mainstream media . 
without h.r. 1606 , i fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign web site , or merely forwarding a candidate 's press release to an e-mail list , and the list goes on . 
if bloggers are compelled to hire lawyers to navigate this complex , gray , murky world of federal regulation , many will simply cease to operate . 
that would only leave the wealthier participants in this blog-osphere and undermine public access to information and the chance for smaller groups to participate in our democracy in this fashion . 
those opposing the bill claim that some day , somehow , somewhere , there may be corruption . 
yet the fec itself could not see the threat of corruption that is present in a `` medium that allows almost limitless , inexpensive communication across the broadest cross-section of the american population. '' let those who cry corruption cite examples and carry the burden in this debate to abridge the first amendment rights of our citizens . 
mr. speaker , it is a heavy burden to carry . 
in 2002 , before i came to this body , congress passed a sweeping new campaign finance law ; and , in a rare moment of restraint , nowhere in the new law did congress impose restrictions on the internet . 
consequently , the fec , the entity solely devoted to regulating campaign activity , left that promising new technology alone . 
under the new law , public communications were clearly defined ; and , just as clearly , the internet does not appear on this list . 
mr. speaker , i am quite certain that congress was aware of the internet 's existence 3 years ago . 
indeed , it is mentioned in other parts of the legislation . 
so , logically , the fec declined to regulate public communications online , equating the give and take on the internet to candidate forums and rallies and debates that are open to the public . 
just like on the street corner , people can talk back to a blog by writing their own posts or establishing their own sites . 
how do you talk back to a radio ad except with another radio ad that costs perhaps tens of thousands of dollars to run ? 
this is very different . 
web sites and messages are very effective , very democratic , and very affordable tools , a different means of communication . 
despite congressional silence on this matter , in 2004 , a federal court instructed the fec to regulate internet communications , and that process is under way . 
because the vast majority of web sites are independently and inexpensively operated , regulatory burdens are going to limit the internet 's usefulness as a political forum . 
i am gratified to see the thoughtful and energetic response of the blog-osphere to these proposed rules . 
it is just this type of free exchange of opinions that we are trying to protect today . 
the bottom line is that campaign finance laws must enhance , not hinder electoral participation ; and i should note that campaign blogs and all official campaign activities will still be regulated by the fec after the passage of this legislation . 
i am proud that my democratic colleague , the gentleman from michigan , the ranking member of the house judiciary committee , has cosponsored this bill , signifying that this is truly a bipartisan effort . 
in the other body , the distinguished senate minority leader has partnered with my friend , senator coburn , to defend american freedom of speech online by introducing this identical language in the other body . 
over 200 years ago , in this house of representatives , james madison stated , `` the people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak , to write , or to publish their sentiments. '' today , congress finds itself debating the very same rights under far more modern realities . 
new regulations are not the answer each time a new technology emerges . 
the bipartisan online freedom of speech act protects the first amendment rights of internet users and prevents the fec from making needless and arbitrary distinctions . 
when the choice is between more regulation and more freedom , we should always err on the side of freedom . 
