You can read the official Federal Election Commission (FEC) letter here or check out a Associated Press article summarizing the decision here, also quoted below:

DailyKos, an influential political Web site that serves as a virtual bulletin board for liberals, qualifies as a media entity exempt from federal campaign finance regulations, the Federal Election Commission said Tuesday.

The FEC said the Web site, operated by blogger Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, cannot be regulated as a political committee and can freely post blog entries that support candidates.

Conservative blogger John C.A. Bambenek had argued in a complaint last month that the site should comply with campaign finance laws because such entries amounted to “a gift of free advertising and candidate media services.’

So what does this mean? Good things for people like me ultimately. It is yet another step in the direction of regulators, opinion makers and the government looking at bloggers as real ‘media’ and guaranteeing us similar protections. It also ensures we can continue to provide editorial content in a free and relatively unrestricted environment.

From the decision:

In Matter Under Review (MUR) 5928, the Commission determined that Kos Media, L.L.C., which operates the website DailyKos, did not violate the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Commission rejected allegations that the site should be regulated as a political committee because it charges a fee to place advertising on its website and it provides “a gift of free advertising and candidate media services” by posting blog entries that support candidates. The Commission determined that the website falls squarely within the media exemption and is therefore not subject to federal regulation under the Act.

This is also a decision that will help to encourage online participation and the creation of online forums. It also means we can continue to build up online advocacy outlets that fundraise and fight for political agenda’s. That is good because it helps online activists counter the vast amounts of money/influence gained by corporations, unions and other groups, hopefully bringing new voices to the table both liberal and conservative.

There was also a second case involved, summary from the aforementioned Associated Press article:

The commission also rejected a complaint by Rep. Mary Bono, R-Calif., alleging that her 2006 Democratic opponent, David Roth, coordinated efforts with a blogger to advocate her defeat in the November 2006 general election. Bono won.

The FEC said the blogger, Michael L. Grace, acted in the capacity of a volunteer and his blogging efforts did not constitute an “in-kind service” subject to financial disclosure rules.

Is it all good? No, probably not.

The immediate thing that jumps out at me is the great potential for abuse. I think specifically of the “Swift Boat Veterans” in the 2004 campaign. There is nothing to stop someone from going online, creating a site advocating the complete destruction of a candidate, encouraging people to spread misleading or false information that walks a fine line of libel or slander all while raising a very large amount of money to bring that agenda to a much larger audience.

Ultimately there seemed to be little legal reasoning that could justify going the other way on this and we’ve been living with this unrestricted environment for awhile now. So this is by no means a titanic shift, it is just a reaffirmation of the status quo. However as more people seek out political information online and more people create these little niches, the limits of good taste and fairness will be tested. Just something to keep in mind.