But Cornfield also wants clear rules to let individuals speak without worrying about laws designed to restrain big money more than big mouths. Anything less, he says, will dampen discourse while opening up unsuspecting Web site operators to nuisance suits by rival campaigns. David Mason, a Republican FEC commissioner widely considered most sympathetic to First Amendment concerns, says Cornfield is right in the abstract. Publisher or not, the FEC threw out their request, saying it would have amounted to a contribution to every candidate who accepted. And even though Connecticut entrepreneur Leo Smith argued he had a right to remain anonymous when he put up a site supporting Charlotte Koskoff for Congress, the FEC told him he was wrong last November.
All sides agree that current campaign regulations prohibit online anonymity.
And commissioners say that's good, since they can't control corruption in a world where speakers can't be identified. But the ACLU's Steinhardt insists online anonymity is more than an academic nicety. In some cases, protecting anonymity could literally be a life saver, sparing supporters of unpopular candidates abuse by others, he says. And courts have upheld the right of anonymous political speech even in mundane circumstances, in one case protecting a group of pamphleteers who opposed a tax levy in Ohio. The way Mason and Thomas both tell it, the nation's campaign-finance laws won't likely need much modification to address First Amendment Internet concerns.