The American Spectator

Political Hay

February 10, 2009

p>Insta Pundit br> University of Tennessee br> School of Law br> Knoxville, TN /p>

Dear Mr. Pundit,

I am writing to inform you that the Federal Election Commission has voted unanimously to support my recommendation that there is "reason to believe" that you have violated federal election law. Pursuant to that finding, the Commission has opened an investigation of these violations.

I hereby direct you to provide sworn written answers to the following questions related to your violation of federal election law.

1. Did you on or before August 30, 2008, state on your "blog" that "If elected, Hillary Clinton will be the worst U.S. president of my lifetime"?

2. Did you on or before August 10, 2008, state on your "blog" that "John McCain is an enemy of the First Amendment. If he is elected president, the nation is in trouble."?

3. Did your "blog" on August 10, 2008, and August 30, 2008, receive in excess of 100,000 visitors?

As part of its investigation, the Commission has subpoenaed your hosting company to provide information about activity on your "blog" on the dates in question in relation to the questions above.

Please note: if you refuse to provide sworn written answers to these questions, the Commission can ask a federal district court to enforce these subpoenas and orders.

In your last letter to the Commission, you stated that "my alleged blogging about Senators McCain and Clinton is protected from government regulation by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." You conclude: "The Constitution says 'Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech.' No law means no law."

topics:
John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, NATO