Still fuming over their November loss to Donald Trump, Democrats have proposed new FEC rules that would make it illegal to share Facebook articles the government deems as “fake news.”

Political content on the internet, paid or not, should face substantial federal regulation to eliminate undefined “disinformation,” and users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times, could be punished for sharing “fake news” from those sites, the former Democratic chair of the FEC is urging,” Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard writes.

Under the proposal by Obama-era FEC chair Ann Ravel, the federal government would seize control of internet news content in order to “improve voter competence.”

Government regulation is particularly powerful and useful when it solves informational deficits,” says Ravel, defining disagreement with the government as an “informational deficit.

Government regulations to help voters avoid spreading disinformation,” Ravel claims, blaming “disinformation” on the fact voters didn’t pick Hillary Clinton after learning the truth about her.

In order to stop voters from learning information about politicians that politicians don’t want them to know Ravel proposes:

“..after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”

That means if one were to share an article from Fox News that the government “disputes,” you could be held personally and legally liable in court for posting it to your Facebook account.

“Without clearly defining ‘disinformation’ Ravel would give bureaucrats the power to label postings as false and harass those who share such information.  Of course, this would also involve massive databanks of collections ads and discussions by the government.,” writes constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, who is generally liberal.

In other words, the government would define truth and legally punish anyone in dispute with the government.

Ravel’s proposal would also require the government to catalog and review all political advertising.

Government should require all platforms to save and post every version of every political ad placed online,” Ravel proposes.

Ann’s proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the NewYorkTimes.com,” warns fellow former FEC chairman Lee Goodman.

A fatal flaw of Ann’s proposal is that it cannot define what is, or is not, ‘disinformation’ in a political message,” says Goodman. “Nevertheless, it proposes to tag threats of libel lawsuits and liability to thousands of American citizens who might want to retweet or forward a message that somebody else subjectively considers to be ‘disinformational.’ I call that the big chill.”

Americans should not be required to sign a national registry every time they post a political video on YouTube,” says Goodman.