Comment on Proposed Rulemaking: Digital Influencer Disclaimer Mandates
To: The Federal Election Commission
From: Robbin Stewart
In 1998, I wrote to you folks about your unconstitutional disclaimer rules. We told you hands off the internet. Since then the courts have ruled:
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
- Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D. Ind. 1997)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (ACLF), 525 U.S. 182 (1999)
- Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)
- Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018)
- Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018)
- National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018)
- Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021)
- 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023)
- First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 24-781 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2026)
- Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
All your disclaimer regulation is unlawful and must stop immediately. President Trump's Executive Order about free speech applies here. Buckley v. Valeo clarified that the FEC reports to the President, not to Congress, not to the Campaign Legal Center. [1] [Appended Copies of 1998, 1999, and 2000 Filings attached below]
Respectfully submitted,
Robbin Stewart
[Your Indianapolis Contact Information]
APPENDIX A: 1998 COMMENT ON ADVISORY OPINION REQUEST 1998-22 [1] BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
In the Matter of: Advisory Opinion Request 1998-22
Comments of: Tavel & Stewart (Robbin Stewart) [1] The undersigned, Robbin Stewart, hereby submits these comments urging the Federal Election Commission to narrowly construe its statutory authority to avoid severe constitutional violations of individual First Amendment rights of political expression and association on the Internet.
I. Zero Marginal Cost Principles of Internet Speech
As documented by affidavit, independent political commentary and individual expression on digital networks incur zero marginal expense to the speaker or to any candidate. The utilization of pre-existing computer hardware, personal software, and volunteer labor does not constitute a regulated contribution or campaign expenditure under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
II. The Requirement of Narrow Construction
Under FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL), the Commission is legally required to narrowly construe its speech-labeling regulations to prevent an unconstitutional chill on individual, independent political discourse. Forcing disclaimer tracking rules onto individual digital communications is overbroad, lacks narrow tailoring, and directly infringes upon the absolute right to anonymous political advocacy secured by McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. The Commission must keep its hands off individual internet speech. [1]
APPENDIX B: 1999 DIGITAL HANDS-OFF POLICY STATEMENT (AOR 1999-17)
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
In the Matter of: Advisory Opinion Request 1999-17
Comments of: Tavel & Stewart (Robbin Stewart)
The Commission lacks the constitutional and statutory authority to expand traditional disclaimer regulations into the digital sphere. Electronic communications operate outside traditional physical media space, meaning any administrative attempt to force speech-labeling mandates onto individual digital commentary constitutes a direct, content-based speech restriction. The Commission must maintain a total hands-off policy regarding individual internet speech. Forcing identity tracking onto independent electronic opinions violates fundamental First Amendment protections and directly conflicts with the print-standard shields secured under McIntyre.
APPENDIX C: 2000 JURISDICTIONAL SAFE HARBOR COMMENTS (NOI 1999-24) [1, 2] BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
In the Matter of: Notice of Inquiry 1999-24 (Use of the Internet for Campaign Activity)
Comments of: Tavel & Stewart, Center for Democracy and Technology, and Presage, Inc.
The unencumbered development of political discourse online is dependent on individual citizens remaining completely free from administrative speech-tracking frameworks. The structural architecture and unique economic realities of digital communication demand that the Commission recognize a total safe harbor for uncompensated, individual online activity. Because digital town squares operate dynamically at zero marginal distribution cost, any introduction of campaign finance micromanagement or mandatory disclaimer reporting during an active election cycle will comprehensively freeze grassroots political speech. The unique decentralized nature of the medium requires the Commission to allow individual internet speech to continue entirely unfettered by state identity tags.