Congress is considering implementing new rules that would require lawmakers to receive prior approval before posting video, or other forms of communications, to websites like Facebook and YouTube.

The change is being considered in the House by the Committee on House Administration, which is chaired by Pennsylvania Democrat Robert Brady. Last month, Massachusetts Democrat Michael Capuano sent a letter to Brady proposing that a list of approved websites be established where lawmakers could post videos of discussions of ongoing legislation. Currently, members can post to any website, and have already employed social networking sites like Facebook to push for and against legislative efforts. However, both sides agree the current practice is in violation of House rules.

Mr. Brady's office says the rule changes only apply to websites that are operated on a commercial basis. A response letter from House Republican Leader John Boehner to members of the online community argues against the proposal, saying it would in effect censor members of Congress and block citizens from rightfully obtaining information about their government:

If the proposed rule is adopted, the free flow of information over the Internet between Americans and their representatives will be significantly curtailed. Americans who currently use free websites like YouTube to obtain uncensored daily information about congressional policy debates will instead be forced to go to websites "approved" by the House Administration Committee in order to continue getting such information. This would amount to new government censorship of the Internet, by a panel of federal officials that is neither neutral nor independent. 

Boehner also today sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi, arguing many of the same points. A House Republican aide said the initial response has been "pretty overwhelming," and will leave Pelosi "in a box" dealing with angry constituents from both sides of the ideological spectrum. The initial online response has been an angry reaction to the proposed changes. Opponents have created a Facebook group and some conservative bloggers have picked up on the issue.

A response from Rep. Capuano describing the Republican complaints as "laughably inaccurate was provided to CQ Politics. In the statement, Capuano says:

 

"First the ONLY item we seek to address is LOOSENING existing rules to allow Members to post videos as a first step toward making the rules meet our constituents' expectations regarding how they communicate with us in the 21^st century. This was completely ignored during the years that Republicans controlled Congress while the internet grew exponentially. It is currently against House rules to post video on any site with commercial or political advertising or to use taxpayer-funded resources to post outside of the House.gov domain."

"We are not currently seeking to address anything other than video - not blog postings, online chats or any other written form of communication anywhere on the internet. Any assertion to the contrary is a lie."

Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling is introducing a bill called the Blogger Protection Act of 2008, which seeks to put a 2006 FEC decision into law, that allows bloggers to comment on federal candidates and issues without being subjected to campaign finance laws. Online fundraising efforts will still be subject to traditional regulations, but speech would not be regulated.

From the Hensarling release:

As you know, regulations can be changed without congressional action, and there's no telling what a future FEC might decide to do. Furthermore, the FEC is currently defunct because of the vacancies and a lack of quorum. Therefore, we shouldn't put the freedom of bloggers in the regulatory hands of the FEC. Congress should protect them in law. 

CQ Politics' Rachel Kapochunas looks into the controversy surrounding Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek's decision to not endorse their fellow Florida Democrats challenging three incumbent Republican lawmakers. While Schultz and Meek are sitting out because of their ties to the three GOP members:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi , Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , DCCC chairman Chris Van Hollen , Majority Whip James E. Clyburn and Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel sent letters to the three Democratic candidates affirming their support.

Earlier today the House GOP leadership staged a dramatic walkout onto the steps of Congress, where they held a news conference accusing the Democrats of wasting time while pursuing contempt charges against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton, rather than addressing a temporary surveillance law that's about to expire.

However, liberal bloggers are pushing back, noting that the walkout happened at the same time as memorial services for the recently deceased Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA).

John Aravosis says:

Even the dead are political pawns to the Republicans (then again, we already knew that post-September 11).

And Outside the Beltway's James Joyner says the Republicans made a misstep as well:

Silliness in Congress has morphed into ugliness

However, NRO has a more sympathetic take:

Tensions were already unnecessarily high today because of an earlier scheduling snafu — just a simple error, apparently in the Speaker's office. Under a bipartisan agreement, the House was not to come into session until after the Tom Lantos memorial service. But the service ran long, and the session was gavelled in anyway.

The invaluable Brendan Nyhan links to today's New York Times story which puts the actual monetary effect of congressional earmarks into proper context. The Times' David Kirkpatrick reports they make up less than 1 percent of the federal budget. As Nyhan explains:

Like welfare and foreign aid, the cost of earmarks as a proportion of the federal budget are vastly exaggerated. Sadly, I'm guessing most stories today will omit this necessary context. 

Several congressional reporters and bloggers, myself included on both fronts, have placed perhaps too great an emphasis on the prevalence of earmarks. However, I do believe there is justification for this bit of fiscal obsession. Excessive spending is often difficult to communicate as an issue, whether you are a reporter or an activist. Earmarks are symbolic of that issue and translate into a rare economic narrative that resonates with voters. They also are a perfect example of lawmakers from both parties circumventing the electorate to pursue projects that otherwise would likely not gain popular support. So, while their literal burden on the taxpayer may be dwarfed by other budgetary matters, they are still very important symbolically. Unfortunately, this administration has finally caught on to that, and now seeks to use them as a tool of political convenience, rather than to seriously address the philosophy of fiscal restraint. But that should not diminish their importance to individuals who believe that the government does too much, or should be more transparent and effective about what it chooses to do.

From our CQ Politics midday update:

Less than a month into his tenure as conference chairman, Sen. Lamar Alexander , R-Tenn., is coming under heavy fire from conservatives, who are planning to fashion an alternative Republican agenda for the year.

Conservatives say the agenda they put forth will be meant to complement Alexander’s.

But his candidacy had been opposed by hard-liners, and their dissatisfaction appears to be shared, to some degree, at the grassroots level.

Erick Erickson, who runs the conservative Web site www.redstate.org, sent an e-mail to his more than 100,000 subscribers criticizing Alexander and invoking names in the other party that conservatives love to hate — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton , D-N.Y., and liberal icon Edward M. Kennedy , D-Mass.

“Rather than push bold conservative issues, the Senate GOP leadership will instead enjoy the table scraps Harry Reid , Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton throw them from the leadership table,” that e-mail said.

Erickson is encouraging his readers to contact Alexander's office to express their objections.

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint stopped by the Heritage Foundation today for the weekly Conservative Bloggers Briefing, hosted by Heritage’s web guru, Rob Bluey.

“I think for the first time in the past year, we are beginning to see the power of blogs,” DeMint told the crowd, which included visiting activists from more than 30 states.

DeMint said the influence of conservative bloggers has grown to the point where their agenda now shapes the programming decisions of conservative talk radio. In fact, DeMint said his office has even begun circulating some of its press releases directly to the blogosphere, circumventing the mainstream press.

Specifically, DeMint gave conservative bloggers credit for defeating a comprehensive immigration bill earlier this week. “The bloggers took it apart, showed people what was really in it,” he said. “We could not have done it as just a couple of senators.”

Looking forward, he said bloggers will be instrumental in pressuring lawmakers over the Iraq funding debate, “Just help us expose what is really going on here,” he said.