US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN and my congressman) goes online at RedState.org to post her disappointment on the failure of H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech act. In part:

One of the reasons I think you’ve seen some oppose H.R. 1606 is because they supported the 2002 campaign finance reform legislation and they’re trying to defend that vote still. In many ways H.R. 1606 is a recognition that the 2002 reform has been a disaster. And I have no doubt at least a few voted no on H.R. 1606 in order to bolster their assertion that the 2002 reform was a positive.

I agree completely.

Compare and contrast with Rep. Todd Platts’ (R-PA) reasoning for voting against the legislation, posted by Captain’s Quarters:

As the last election cycle demonstrated, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act has been successful in reducing the role of large, undisclosed “soft money” contributions to political parties and candidates without diminishing free speech in any way. As such, I voted against H.R. 1606, which would have undermined the 2002 law by creating a new, potentially huge soft money loophole.

Platts goes on to assure us that the FCC is drafting regulations that will protect bloggers.

Why am I not reassured?