Ajit Pai is 1 of 2 Republicans on the panel of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and he’s cautioning that the federal government will utilize net neutrality to censor political articles on websites. That, needless to say, is an infringement of the American people’s right of free speech that’s guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

For his alerts, Pai has gotten threats to him and his family.

Rudy Takala is a reporter for CNS News that speaks on a board at the yearly “Right Online” meeting in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, May 2, 2015, FCC representative Ajit Pai stated he predicts a future in which federal regulators will look high and low to regulate websites based on political subject material, utilizing the power of the FCC or Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

Pai also uncovered that his resistance to “net neutrality” regulations had led to personal harassment and threats to his family:

“I can tell you it has not been an easy couple of months personally. My address has been publicly released. My wife’s name, my kids’ names, my kids’ birthdays, my phone number, all kinds of threats [have come] online.”

Pai, 1 of 2 Republicans on the 5 member FCC, has been a blunt pundit of net neutrality regulations passed by the organization on Feb. 26. The rules, which are set to take effect on June 12, reclassify Internet providers as utilities and mandate them not to block or “throttle” online traffic. But Pai said:

“I could easily see this migrating over to the direction of content… What you’re seeing now is an impulse not just to regulate the roads over which traffic goes, but the traffic itself. It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, ‘We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse. He doesn’t have to file anything with the FEC. The FCC doesn’t have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that’…. The First Amendment means not just the cold parchment that’s in the Constitution. It’s an ongoing cultural commitment, and I sense that among a substantial number of Americans and a disturbing number of regulators here in Washington that online speech is [considered] a dangerous brave new world that needs to be regulated.”

In February, Pai co-authored a column with ex – FEC Chairman Lee Goodman that notified of attempts by those agencies to regulate material online.

In commentary to CNSNews.com, Pai also spoke about the FCC’s finances, the enactment of taxes on Internet usage, and subsidies for Internet service.

Internet tax: The reclassification of Internet providers as utilities permits the FCC to enforce a “Universal Service Fund” (USF) tax on their revenue.The USF has grown tremendously in recent years, and presently stands at $12 billion annually – so large that the FCC has asked for it be authorized to transfer $25 million of the money to its own budget to “administer” the fund. As a consequence, some in Congress have proposed restricting the size of the USF to $9 billion. Pai stated the USF tax “should be lower than what a majority of the FCC wants it to be… Whatever it is, there has to be a cap. What we’ve found is that USF funding has exploded over the past couple of years so that the USF tax is 67 percent higher than it was in 2009.”

Welfare programs of phone and Internet subsidies: Those USF taxes are being utilized to fund government programs such as the Lifeline program (typically recognized as the Obama Phone program) and the E-Rate program that subsidizes broadband accessibility for schools and libraries.

And the government desires to broaden those programs, which means even increased USF taxes.

Pai is in favor of lowering the spending plan of the FCC:

“We should deny funding for some of the things the FCC wants to spend money on. Any funds, for example, to enforce these net neutrality regulations, [and] this shift of $25 million from the Universal Service Fund to the FCC itself in order to pursue its own policy priorities – I think we need to do more with less. I don’t think we’re doing that by asking for a much higher budget.