Last week on the Google Public Policy Blog, Peter Greenberger of Google's Elections and Issue Advocacy Team posted Google's new guidelines for political advertising on the site. Most of the guidelines seem fairly straightforward and sensible to me since they relate to general principles of fairness and transparency. But sandwiched in between those principles is the following guideline:

No attacks on an individual's personal life. Stating disagreement with or campaigning against a candidate for public office, a political party, or public administration is generally permissible. However, political ads must not include accusations or attacks relating to an individual's personal life, nor can they advocate against a protected group. So, "Crime rates are up under Police Commissioner Gordon" is okay, but "Police Commissioner Gordon had an affair" is not.

I understand what Google is trying to do here in terms of making the Net a more civil place to engage in deliberative democracy without all the mud-slinging and name-calling. In one sense, I applaud them for that. On the other hand, the world is not a perfect place and candidates are not perfect people. And, candidates for office are not just like any other citizen in our society. They are people who will be given power over other people. Power over our lives, our liberties and fate of the nation.

A few weeks ago I was discussing "Campaign Finance Laws in the You Tube Age" and was wondering aloud whether current campaign finance regulations were sustainable in an age of user-generated content and viral videos. The Washington Post ponders that same question today in highlighting the impact of clever mock campaign ad mash-ups like this one about "Big Sister" Hillary Clinton, which already has roughly 1.5 million hits:

The Post story notes that "this ad's reach really blows up any notion that candidates and mainstream media outlets can control the campaign dialogue. Especially online." That's exactly right, but they don't go on to ask the next logical question about how Congress and the FEC are going to deal with the growing flood of online campaign ads and commentary during coming election cycles. Remember, stuff like this can be regulated when aired on traditional television and radio outlets in the days leading up to an election. I just don't see how current campaign finance regs and the Internet can co-exist in the long run. There's just no way regulators are going to be able to keep pace with all the activity out there.

Last week I was a guest on a Seattle radio station (KVI 570) program hosted by conservative talk show host Kirby Wilbur. He invited me on to talk about various First Amendment issues including efforts to regulate video games. Like many radio hosts I've dealt with in the past, he was very sympathetic to my free speech leanings. But Kirby Wilbur has another good reason to love the First Amendment: It's the only thing he has to rely on in his fight against our nation's absolutely absurd campaign finance laws.

Here's Kirby's story. Back in 2005, Mr. Wilbur and his KVI colleague John Carlson had the audacity to speak their minds about a ballot initiative pending in their home state of Washington. The ballot initiative was an effort to repeal the state's recent gas tax increase. Proponents of the tax (mostly municipal government officials) were none too happy to hear people speaking their minds about the issue on a talk radio show. So, they decided to file a lawsuit demanding that the grassroots "No New Gas Tax" organization that had mobilized to fight the tax actually disclose the value of the hosts' radio advocacy as an "in-kind campaign contribution"! And, amazingly, they got a judge to agree with them!!

As I've written before, America's increasingly heavy-handed, anti-free speech campaign finance laws threaten to eventually ensnare the entire Internet and our new innovative, bottom-up world of organic "we-dia" (WE-MEDIA). Blogs are already in their crosshairs and lawmakers will be targeting other technologies of freedom in coming years.

Want to know where we might be headed? Look at Singapore. They've got a long history of stifling political speech and now their drawing up a blueprint to quash dissent via alternative digital outlets.

Lee Boon Yang, Minister for Communications, Information and the Arts (and you thought the FCC was bad!) recently said that "Anyone, anywhere can blog anything, anyhow. We have adopted a light touch approach in dealing with the everyday use of the Internet." Well, that sounds encouraging, but then... "However, during the election period when such free-for-all may result in undesirable situations, we cannot take a completely hands-off approach," he said. "We will review our policies on the Internet and new media during the election period bearing in mind the changes taking place."

According to this AFP story, Singapore has already been criticized by human rights groups and opposition parties for placing restrictions on political discussions on the Internet. The rules apparently already ban the use of use of podcasts and videocasts for advertising during elections.

Whether or not this all works remains to be seen. It's one thing to regulate the signals being beamed out from a big broadcast tower. (After all, it's pretty easy to find those towers and their programmers). Internet "broadcasters" are another matter, however, and enforcement will become a nightmare for the regulators as more and more people get online.

But that doesn't mean the regulators won't give it their best shot. And while lawmakers here in the States have given blogs and the Internet a reprieve for now, you'd be fooling yourself to believe that that's the end of the story. Regulation expands. Always and everywhere.

Last night a majority of the House did vote for the online speech legislation, however when a bill is considered on the suspension calendar it requires a two-thirds vote. Alas, it failed to achieve a supermajority. The story is here.

I'm always amazed when politicians are willing to take a public stand that assures less information, less involvement and fewer resources devoted to politics. I shouldn't be. Randy rightly notes below their interest is creating barriers to entry in the political marketplace. Fortunately, the bill's supporters vow to bring it back before rules are drafted at the FEC to clamp down on Internet-based political speech.

I want to say a few words about this debate over the application of campaign finance regulations to the Internet and Web blogs in particular, but let me just start by admitting that I'm not an expert on campaign finance law. In fact, I am utterly mystified by this entire body of law, not only in terms of its sheer complexity, but also in terms of what it sometimes hopes to accomplish.

I understand that (at least in theory) the laws are suppose to eliminate "corruption" from our political process. But is it just me or is it not that case that campaign finance laws continue to get more complicated while the political process remains just about as "corrupt" as it has always been?

Well, maybe I'm just a cynic about the political process in general. So, let me instead just focus on all this from the perspective of a guy who cares about new media. The current batch of campaign finance regulations is really geared toward broadcasting and broadcast television in particular. But, as of late, the folks down at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) have discovered this thing called the Internet and this new craze called blogging just might have a little impact on the future of media in this country and, therefore, by extension, our political process.