Ed Morissey over at Captain's Quarters asks why a solidly conservative representative might vote against free speech, as Todd Platt of Pennsylvania did in voting down H.R. 1606.
I'd like to know, as well. I doubt the Cap'n is any more satisfied than I am with the answer given. I'd like to believe that the majority of Republicans who gave H.R. 1606 a thumbs down were hoping that, eventually, it will make its way to the SCOTUS, where rational men like Roberts and Aleto (one can hope) will shoot it down as the unconstitutional act that it is, and that it will, further, begin the dismantling of BCRA (McCain-Feingold). But I doubt they really think that far ahead, in Congress. And I doubt that they have a clue what they're doing to our nation when they screw around with the First Amendment.
It bugs the heck out of me that our elected officials keep trying to put limits on speech (many of us use our dollars to talk for us, and quite a few donate to lobbying organizations we believe will serve our political interests. To restrict political spending/speech is an affront to any and all who respect the Constitution). All they really need to do is to guarantee instantaneous $$ transparency. We have the technology to provide for that. When we know who's getting paid by whom, we can react appropriately, by either supporting or thumbing our noses at him, come election day.
I don't really believe bloggers need an exception to BCRA. I think the whole thing ought to be scrapped as an abomination.
If it comes down to defending our GOD-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom, I will risk my own for the cause. Not that I expect to become so powerful an individual that I threaten status quo. But we bloggers aren't exactly small in number, and many of us vote.
Update: Allison Hayward has a useful piece on this at the National Review (via Instapundit)