Waitone
Member
Double tap removed
Senate Bill 1 - Something nasty in the fine print
- Thread starter Gildas
- Start date
- Status
bill in IN
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 130
Does this mean they'll have to register before every major network newscast?
I'm going to be the lone disagreement here - this is a much needed law to fight astroturfing.
If you're just running a site that states your own opinion, and even if you make money from ads or whatever, you're not a lobbyist. Even if you by yourself ask people to contact reps on an issue, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T TAKE MONEY FROM SOMEONE TO SAY THAT, you're not a lobbyist.
You will have to register as a lobbyist if somebody cuts you a check to post, on your blog, a call to the public to write government officials requesting specific official action.
This bill is intended to call fake grassroots astroturfing what it is--lobbying.
If you oppose this bill, you're actually helping the lobbyists. Current law doesn't cover the internet, and needs to. Currently, lobbying firms can pay Joe Blogger $1000 to post "Oppose HR 1234, write your reps", and there aren't any repercussions. Do this to 1000 sites, and you create the impression of a fake grassroots sentiment where none exists - and that's detrimental to the political process.
Joe Blogger is PERFECTLY FREE to post ""Oppose HR 1234, write your reps", as long as NO ONE PAYS HIM TO SAY IT.
Sites like THR are in no way endangered by this bill. Sites like the Brady Campaign shill sites "American Sportsmen" et. al., are.
/dons flame suit
If you're just running a site that states your own opinion, and even if you make money from ads or whatever, you're not a lobbyist. Even if you by yourself ask people to contact reps on an issue, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T TAKE MONEY FROM SOMEONE TO SAY THAT, you're not a lobbyist.
You will have to register as a lobbyist if somebody cuts you a check to post, on your blog, a call to the public to write government officials requesting specific official action.
This bill is intended to call fake grassroots astroturfing what it is--lobbying.
If you oppose this bill, you're actually helping the lobbyists. Current law doesn't cover the internet, and needs to. Currently, lobbying firms can pay Joe Blogger $1000 to post "Oppose HR 1234, write your reps", and there aren't any repercussions. Do this to 1000 sites, and you create the impression of a fake grassroots sentiment where none exists - and that's detrimental to the political process.
Joe Blogger is PERFECTLY FREE to post ""Oppose HR 1234, write your reps", as long as NO ONE PAYS HIM TO SAY IT.
Sites like THR are in no way endangered by this bill. Sites like the Brady Campaign shill sites "American Sportsmen" et. al., are.
/dons flame suit
Sindawe
Member
Swami Sindawe dons his jewel encrusted robes and gold silk turban, lights the incense and gazes intently into his ancient carved crystal scrying skull and prognosticates that if passed & signed into law this, like RICO and asset forfeiture before it, wil be used as a hammer against the small groups and individuals who garner disfavor from those in power.
The texts of our laws matter not to those who wear custom Italian suits and walk carpeted halls. They can,have and will again twist words to suit their own ends, the orignal intent be damned.
Gildas
Member
I'm going to be charitable. That is probably what it is intended to do.
But that is not what it does, when you read the text of the law.
Under the law an organisation which is its own lobbyist (i.e. does its own work on the matter) but pays its staff is defined as a lobbying firm and is affected as well.
That means NRA-ILA
That means GOA
That means The Sierra Club
That means NOW
That means Focus on the Family
It affects every side of the debate - conservative groups, liberal groups, libertarian groups, religous groups. You name it, if they are big enough to matter and ask people to contact legislators then it affects them.
Which means that they have to report to Congress each piece of "encouraging grassroots lobbying" they undertake.
And if they forget one - bam thats a giant fine (or as the bill looks like its being amended now, a Felony conviction).
And can you imagine the media coverage of any mistakes by NRA-ILA in complying with this law?
"NRA admits it broke lobbying rules"
There may be fine public policy reasons for doing that (I'll leave it to the First Amendment purists to debate that), but that is not what this bill does. In trying to do that it affects a whole bunch of people who monitor what is going on in Washington and get the word out to like minded people. If you want to stop slimy PR firms faking grassroots lobbying (which interestingly is what the Pew Foundation practically admitted it did in the push for Campaign Finance Reform), then draft a bill that does so without the collateral damage.
No one said they would be, but NRA-ILA would be, and we'd get less information as a result.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The NRA was investigated by the IRS for all eight years of the Clinton Administration and they went through the organization with a tooth and comb looking for any error that they might use to trip them up.
This legislation seems to me to be a perfect partisan politics tool in that it requires a fair amount of paperwork with serious consequences if the paperwork is missing. Organizations that don't get investigated, don't face any problems regardless of how their paperwork looks. Organizations that do get investigated had better not forget to dot an "i."
This legislation seems to me to be a perfect partisan politics tool in that it requires a fair amount of paperwork with serious consequences if the paperwork is missing. Organizations that don't get investigated, don't face any problems regardless of how their paperwork looks. Organizations that do get investigated had better not forget to dot an "i."
Gildas
Member
Section 220 is history!!!
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00017
Bennett's amendment to strip out the language about grassroots lobbying passed 55-43 (with Brownback (R-KS) and Tim Johnson (D-SD) not voting).
This will still need to be watched as it won't match the House version of the Bill and therefore will go to a Conference Committee where things can get snuck in, but for now, a victory!
Here's the list of honour (and shame):
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00017
Bennett's amendment to strip out the language about grassroots lobbying passed 55-43 (with Brownback (R-KS) and Tim Johnson (D-SD) not voting).
This will still need to be watched as it won't match the House version of the Bill and therefore will go to a Conference Committee where things can get snuck in, but for now, a victory!
Here's the list of honour (and shame):
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well, just about anytime I see that Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer, Boxer and Feinstein are all on one side of an issue. I get a good feeling that I need to be on the other side.
Much as I loathe the R party generally, I did take note that not one single R person supported this garbage. I did however note the vote of three supposedly pro-gun people...
Sure didn't take long for some people to show their true colors, eh?
(Of the Nay catagory)
Casey (D-PA)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Sure didn't take long for some people to show their true colors, eh?
(Of the Nay catagory)
Casey (D-PA)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,712
Sure am disappointed in Tester
Seemed to be promising.
Then again, they're all "promising", all the time...
Seemed to be promising.
Then again, they're all "promising", all the time...
jamz
Member
I'm happy my Maine Reps did the Right Thing.
Dan from MI
Member
I thought Jon Tester, Jim Webb and Bob Casey were pro-2nd amendment. They sure voted to shut up pro-2nd amendment organizations....
Another reason I don't trust federal Democrats. Too many say one thing and do another when the times get tough.
Another reason I don't trust federal Democrats. Too many say one thing and do another when the times get tough.
Cthulhu
Member
I sent a modified version of Jamz email (I thank you) to my Senators, Barack Obama and Dick Durbin. Absolutely without hope, I know, but at least it was something constructive.
No response from Durbin, but Obama did respond today, with an interesting take on the issue especially since we know he voted the party line as expected.
Dear <Cthulhu>,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to Section 220 of S.1, the Senate’s recently passed ethics bill. Section 220 would have required “grassroots lobbyists” to disclose fundraising information and activities through quarterly reports to the FEC, in the same manner as “direct” or “classic” lobbyists. As you may know, this provision was dropped from the bill during debate on the Senate floor, and the final version of the ethics reform bill passed shortly thereafter without it.
I would like to take this opportunity to make two observations about the debate over Section 220. First, there has been some confusion over the kinds of groups that would have actually been affected by the deleted section. The provision would apply to any person who is paid anything for organizing or encouraging more than 500 members of the general public to send a message (e-mail, phone call, letter, meeting request, etc.) to their representatives in Congress, but only if that person has also contacted congressional offices directly a minimum of two times, and has spent a minimum of 20% of their time working on direct lobbying and grassroots-organizing.
Second, there was a significant partisan undertone to the discussion of Section 220. It may surprise some to know that a number of "conservative" groups, such as the National Right to Life Committee and the Gun Owners of America, were the strongest opponents of the provision. The political reality is that these groups can help mobilize significant numbers of voters for candidates come election time. Indeed, one prominent Republican presidential hopeful voted against the amendment to strike Section 220 despite having authored a similar provision with even tighter requirements during the "reform" debate last year.
Thank you again for writing. Please stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Aww. He wants me to stay in touch. In time, I hope he'll sign his emails KIT or BFF and wish me to HAKAS.
Notice the use of quotation marks, particularly in the last paragraph.
No response from Durbin, but Obama did respond today, with an interesting take on the issue especially since we know he voted the party line as expected.
Dear <Cthulhu>,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to Section 220 of S.1, the Senate’s recently passed ethics bill. Section 220 would have required “grassroots lobbyists” to disclose fundraising information and activities through quarterly reports to the FEC, in the same manner as “direct” or “classic” lobbyists. As you may know, this provision was dropped from the bill during debate on the Senate floor, and the final version of the ethics reform bill passed shortly thereafter without it.
I would like to take this opportunity to make two observations about the debate over Section 220. First, there has been some confusion over the kinds of groups that would have actually been affected by the deleted section. The provision would apply to any person who is paid anything for organizing or encouraging more than 500 members of the general public to send a message (e-mail, phone call, letter, meeting request, etc.) to their representatives in Congress, but only if that person has also contacted congressional offices directly a minimum of two times, and has spent a minimum of 20% of their time working on direct lobbying and grassroots-organizing.
Second, there was a significant partisan undertone to the discussion of Section 220. It may surprise some to know that a number of "conservative" groups, such as the National Right to Life Committee and the Gun Owners of America, were the strongest opponents of the provision. The political reality is that these groups can help mobilize significant numbers of voters for candidates come election time. Indeed, one prominent Republican presidential hopeful voted against the amendment to strike Section 220 despite having authored a similar provision with even tighter requirements during the "reform" debate last year.
Thank you again for writing. Please stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Aww. He wants me to stay in touch.
In time, I hope he'll sign his emails KIT or BFF and wish me to HAKAS.Notice the use of quotation marks, particularly in the last paragraph.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
