It’s unclear why some people are just so clueless… But hey, it takes all kinds to make the world go ’round, no?

John Bambenek is an “academic professional” (is that code for “hippie professor wannabe”?) from Champaign-Urbana. His most recent pursuits have included writing a nonsensical pundit-like column for the Daily Illini (dutifully cross-posting them as a contributor to the Illinois Review blog), taking graduate level classes, writing for his own part-time blog, and running for (and badly losing) a seat on the local school board (apparently Champaign Unit 4 residents don’t think creationism should be taught in public schools as “science”).

He’s apparently also an “assistant politics editor” for something called “BlogCritics.org” an online magazine of critics of everything. From the looks of it, he uses it to echo himself by cross-posting his other posts. And it is in that capacity that he announced he filed a complaint with the FEC against FOX News, RedState.org, The Drudge Report, The Washington Times, Illinois Review blog, Daily Kos for being a political media outlet…

So much for conservatives being against frivolous complaints.

Now, never mind that the FEC already decided this in a year long discussion between 2005-06. Adam Bonin is the attorney for Kos Media, LLC and he comments on Mr. Bambenek’s publicity-seeking BlogCritics.org post (comment #8):

I served as attorney for DailyKos in 2005-06 as the FEC was considering regulation of political activity online.

I strongly, strongly urge you to read FEC Advisory Opinion 2005-16 (”Fired Up”) and the FEC regulations regarding the Internet approved by the FEC in 2006.

In short: the Federal Election Commission has already carefully considered these questions, and has rejected your approach completely, unanimously and unequivocally on facts identical to these. What DailyKos does is exempt from FEC regulation both because of its status as a press entity and because Markos’s voluntary activities neither count as expenditures nor contributions under the law.

Once you review the applicable law, I trust that you will recognize that this complaint has no basis, and withdraw it accordingly.

Mr. Bambenek, wisest of the wise that he is, snarkily responded that Adam could just be “some guy”… Is Mr. Bambenek really this dense?

And never mind that many of Mr. Bambenek’s fellow conservatives strongly disagree with this move, lest it impede their own freedom of speech. RedState says:

Let’s be clear, not only is Bambanek [sic] woefully uninformed about the law (didn’t we go over this for a whole freaking YEAR?) and its application on the internet, he’s even less capable of grasping the concept (and frankly, value) of free speech on the web…. This complaint is a sorry attempt to use government institutions to silence opponents. I’m almost grateful Bambanek apparently slept from March 2005 through the Summer of 2006, because the stunt has zero chance of success.

And never mind that many other of Mr. Bambenek’s conservative comrades ironically strongly loathe the “Fairness Doctrine” which is designed specifically to encourage more honest, free speech using our public airwaves (blogs of course would be exempt since they are not transmitted via publicly-owned airwaves). Mr. Bambenek himself hypocritically stated (read the whole post… it’s classic*):

The “fairness doctrine” is a relic of the past for a reason which will accomplish little more than stifling speech and more accurately stifle only certain ideological forms of speech. In their benevolence, Democrats will allow conservatives to have “free speech” as long as they are not allowed audiences. Unfortunately for them, “free speech” doesn’t work that way. The free market of ideas doesn’t need to be socialized by those who would pre-ordain the ideas that we are to hold.

This strange, hypocritical move simply illustrates Mr. Bambenek’s ignorance of our Constitution and his daft willingness to expose his own compatriots to the exact same charges he levels against a philisophical opponent.

Oh, and of course Illinois Review has cheered this bone-headed, ignorant move by one of their contributors. Way to stick together there in bizarro world. Given the numerous instances of Illinois Review posts supporting conservative and Republican candidates, causes and events … their support for Mr. Bambenek’s complaint against a blog which does the exact same thing seems just a tad short-sighted.

Good-on-ya, mates. Not only are you two-faced (railing against the “Fairness Doctrine” as Mr. Bambenek has done, but also now trying to shut down the very free speech he feigned such concern over) but also astonishingly ignorant of the very laws and regulations you’re attempting to use in this quixotic effort to silence people simply because you disagree with them.

Don’t get me wrong. Even as I think this is just about the dumbest thing since last week’s Bill O’Reilly hatefest railing against Daily Kos by saying they’re like the “KKK” and “Nazis” (wouldn’t that be hatespeech right there, Mr. O’Reilly?), I also support Mr. Bambenek’s right to attempt to make a fool of himself with this myopic complaint.

If he didn’t have the ability to make such a complaint, no one would … even for legit complaints of FEC violations. As it is, I do think Mr. Bambenek should wake up, learn how to read the FEC’s earlier decisions in this area of blogging, and withdraw his complaint. But it’s his right to make the complaint so even though I laugh at him for doing so, he can go right ahead and waste our taxpayer dollars to do it. And if he does go through with it instead of withdrawing it, the FEC should properly throw it out, scold him and advise him to not let the door hit his arse on the way out.

—–

* – Part of Mr. Bambenek’s post railing against the “Fairness Doctrine” included the completely inept complaint that it was aimed solely at talk radio and, if it were to be implemented, should include TV (and the Internet).

This shows a complete lack of understanding of the “Fairness Doctrine” and its original intent (it’s not even a misunderstanding, it’s an utter lack of comprehension).

As I’ve explained previously on this blog, the Fairness Doctrine existed in this country for 50 years (it was implemented before the Cold War, despite Mr. Bambanek’s claims) and was an FCC regulation, though never an actual law. Pres. Reagan ordered the FCC to stop implementing the regulation in 1987 and it literally disappeared from the books immediately thereafter.

It was intended to ensure fair use of the public airwaves. In the test case, Red Lion v FCC, the courts sided with the FCC and declared that Red Lion broadcasting had to allow an author (who had been verbally attacked on air) the opportunity to respond on air since the public owns the airwaves used to do the original attacking.

Now, think about that. It was intended to ensure fair use of public airwaves. Yet Mr. Bambenek complains that it ought to be implemented for TV (which does use public airwaves, so NBC, ABC and CBS would be covered) and for the Internet (which does not use public airwaves, so it would not be covered — though Mr. Bambenek is doing his best to silence an opponent with whom he disagrees).

Oh, and apparently Mr. Bambenek thinks “Wikipedia” is liberally biased… Which is weird because Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia and encyclopedias are based on facts and logic… so that must mean that facts and logic are liberally biased… and the world’s going to end. Or something. (At least Mr. Bambenek can always turn to the fake “facts” at the hilarious Conservapedia to find conservatively biased information. Conservapedia is of course tightly tied to Mr. Bambenek via the Illinois Review since Ill Review editor Fran Eaton is good buddies with Phyllis Schafly and her son is the genius behind Conservapedia.)

UPDATE 1: Apparently, “jbamb” and “JohnBambenek” were been banned from Wikipedia for excessive sockpuppetry and other offenses. No wonder he holds a grudge against an encyclopedia of all things.

UPDATE 2: Bambenek is apparently spelled with two e’s, not two a’s. I fixed it throughout my text, but left it in others’ texts as quoted.