Roll call votes tell us more about the true values of our congressional representatives than any slick advertising or fawning puff pieces in the local Seattle newspapers. Check out my previous July 28, 2005 post regarding congressional attitudes towards victory in the war. (Quick summary: most Democrats want us to lose - all Republicans want us to win)

Well the other day there was another telling vote. The House of Representatives held a procedural vote on the Online Freedom of Speech Act. A yes vote was to allow the act to come to the floor for a vote. A no vote was to keep it away from consideration.

The Online Freedom of Speech Act protects independent online speech from regulation under the campaign finance laws. In short, If I post on my blog that I think you should vote for candidate X (without coordinating with candidate x) I will not have to report it as a campaign donation or be limited on how often I can say it.

This bill should not be necessary because our right to free speech is expressly recognized under the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Court, under the guise of campaign finance laws, has come to the bizarre and dangerous conclusion that free speech is a danger we need to protect ourselves from.

Patriot Blog has a good background on the bill.

Here's how the Washington State delegation voted:

For:

Smith (D)
Reichert (R)
Hastings (R)
McMorris (R)

Against:

Baird (D)
Dicks (D)
Inslee (D)
Larsen (D)
McDermott (D)

Once again the majority of the Democratic delegation from Washington State has shamed themselves. On what is a simple test of commitment to free speech, the leftists failed. Keep this in mind when the "hope America loses" crowd complains that the Bush Administration is trying to stifle dissent.
- posted by Thomas @ 11:16 AM