« Guns with 200 mile range | Main | Media waking up »
Register bloggers, not guns?
S.1 has been introduced in the Senate as "lobbying reform" -- which in this case means "First Amendment infringements." An amendment has been attached, which requires registration of bloggers with more than 500 readers, and who comment on policy issues. Violation would be a criminal offense.
I looked it up on the Library of Congress webpage (which is essentially unlinkable) and have attached section 220 in extended remarks, below. As the bill is reported, it appears to cover any "paid" grassroots lobbying, that reaches more than 500 people. But a blogger who receives contributions might be classed as a "paid" grassroots type. It looks like Congress wants to keep an eye on annoying people like Porkbusters. It may be significant that S.1 was introduced by Harry Reid, one of the Kings of Pork. (Hat tip to Kurt Fremont).
UPDATE: reader Mark Fitzgibbons
I just read the debate on your site about the scope of the grassroots legislation that was defeated in the Senate but is expected to be introduced in the House, in one form or another.
I've written a number of summaries of the legislation. There are several key points in which your readers may be interested.
The bill as written, as opposed to the press relases from the Senators who sponsored the bill (which of course would not be controlling to determine the "intent" of the legislation), would have applied to bloggers. That was not probably not the "intent," but the language of the bill -- as it amended existing law -- demands that conclusion. And I've been doing this stuff long enough to know that if it's written that way, legislation will eventually be enforced that way.
The term "grassroots lobbying firm" and its $25,000 quarterly threshold applies to a whole separate category.
Lobbying subject to registration is two lobbying "contacts" plus 20% of one's time spent on lobbying "activities" for that "client." You can be your own client and your own lobbyist at the same time under current law. Lobbying "contacts" can be as simple as two emails to Congress. The bill would have redefined lobbying "activities" to include communications to as few as 500 people "influencing" them to contact Congress.
There must be some form of compensation from the "client," but here's where the legislation would have made many bloggers lobbyists. All lobbyists, regardless of how much they are paid or how much they spend, would be required to register EXCEPT FOR two specific low-dollar exemptions in the current law. The Senate bill was written in such a way that grassroots communications would be INELIGIBLE for the low-dollar exemptions. So a blogger who receives any compensation (which need not be "financial" under current law) would have fit the definition of "compensated." Even if that language in the bill were a mistake, it was written with extreme precision.
I explain all this in the following, which cites to the legislation and the current law:
http://www.grassrootsfreedom.com/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?action=view&CMSArticleID=485&CMSCategoryID=23
Another piece explains the difference between lobbyists and the new terms "Grassroots Lobbying Firm" created by the legislation, showing why bloggers would not need to cross the $25,000 threshold:
http://www.grassrootsfreedom.com/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?action=view&
CMSArticleID=591&CMSCategoryID=23
I'm the first to admit that the legislation, as it amends the exisitng law, is tough to follow. However, when one works through the mess, the conclusions are unmistakeable. And in the area of the First Amendment, sloppy legislation is unacceptable.
Mark Fitzgibbons
SEC. 220. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING.
(a) Definitions- Section 3 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'; and
(2) by adding at the end of the following:
`(17) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same.
`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.
`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--
`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;
`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;
`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;
`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or
`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.
`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.
(b) Registration- Section 4(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)) is amended--
(1) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3)(A), by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii), the term `lobbying activities' shall not include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
`(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'.
(c) Separate Itemization of Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying- Section 5(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by--
(A) inserting after `total amount of all income' the following: `(including a separate good faith estimate of the total amount of income relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and
(B) inserting `or a grassroots lobbying firm' after `lobbying firm';
(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting after `total expenses' the following: `(including a good faith estimate of the total amount of expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that total amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not apply with respect to reports relating to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying activities.'.
(d) Good Faith Estimates and De Minimis Rules for Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5(c) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(c)) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Estimates of Income or Expenses- For purposes of this section, the following shall apply:
`(1) Estimates of income or expenses shall be made as follows:
`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $10,0000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.
`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $10,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $10,000 for the reporting period.
`(2) Estimates of income or expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying shall be made as follows:
`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $25,000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.
`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $25,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $25,000 for the reporting period.'.
(2) TAX REPORTING- Section 15 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1610) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
`(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'; and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
`(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'.
36 Comments
If only it were so that they want to register bloggers and not guns.
They want to register both with an eye toward banning both.
The blogging community resists "push" blogging. Someone who blogs without data to support his statements, who dumps data that doesn't support. That is against the way the mainstream media conducts business.
Looks like unions will be exempted from any regulation of "grassroots stimulation" -
except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
Can't imagine why they'd be exempted (sarc)
Yet another transparent Incumbency Protection Act pushed on us by a morally corrupt Congress, yet for some odd reason it's Bush that's supposedly squashing our liberties in preparation for his Reich-wing dictatorship. Huh, go figure.
A couple of things (and this coming from a big McCain supporter... full disclosure):
1) Technology will effectively make this bill irrelevant already. 500 readers?? I just started a blog 6 months ago, and I already have well over that many hits. How would they measure?? Would I have to register? If so, the registration list would be as long as the do-not-call list...
2) McCain needs to backtrack on the "campaign funding" position a little bit in light of the technology realities... everyone in the blogosphere needs to realize this guy is of a different generation (and a big hero of that generation), and cut him some slack...
Well you either want lobby reform or not. If your for lobby reform it will impend on free speech somehow.
- A "grassroots lobbying firm" attempts to influence more than 500 people, and
- that firm is retained by clients for the specific purpose of lobbying representatives, and
- that firm receives or spends $25,000 per quarter or more in this contracted lobbying effort.
From this, it seems that the provisions are specifically targetting contracted operations that exceed $100K in annual income or expenses. Further, the income must be explicitly for the client's specified lobbying efforts (i.e. not advertising revenue).
I am very suspicious of Congress' designs on curbing dissenting speech and preserving their jobs, but this doesn't seem to be a problem, as written. Unless a blogger is specifically on someone's payroll (political or corporate) to influence policy no registration shoul dbe required. If, however, a blogger is on such a payroll, well, in my book that's not a blogger but a shill.
TO: David Hardy, et al
RE: You Know....
...you're getting close to the target, when they start throwing more flak at you. -- US Air Force truism
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Keep up the FIRE!]
P.S. Whenever I see one of McCain's blogads for his 'exploratory campaign', I always respond and tell him...
FOAD!
Or words to that effect.
seems like there is no one in the GOP
aspiring for president that is worthy!
America's mayor? very bad background
McCain (in addition to this posted) a man to please everyone at any time--esp.the far right nutters
Mitt Romney? nah
what about Joe Lieberman? no one is sure which party he favors, and if a Black and a woman can run, so too a Jew, right?
WE THE PEPOLE?
Would this apply to newspapers as well? It seems to me that all but the smallest newspapers would be subject to these provisions if,on their editorial pages, they espouse this or that position and urge, explicitly or implicitly, that their readers contact their elected representatives.
What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." do these idiot paltroons not understand?
Sen. Bennett from Utah has introduced an amendment to strike all of the above section (section 220) from the larger bill (s. 1). McCain supports the Bennett amendment which would remove this terrible section.
Any communication with senators in SUPPORT of the Bennett amendment would help keep bloggers free.
There are some really scary people in congress now. Reid and Peeeloshi as leaders are the most scary. The brainwashing of America to accept communism is in full force and succeeding.
The amendment requires both of two conditions be met in order for registration to be required:
1. Grassroots lobbying of 500 or more members of the general public. Grassroots means encouraging them to contact Federal officials to communicate their own views on "an issue".
AND
2. The amount of money received as income, or spent by, or given to the lobbyist/blog/etc... in order to have them spend it on said lobbying, must be 25K or more in a 3 month period. The money must be spent on encouraging grassroots efforts.
It is unclear if one's overhead is included here but I suppose relevant case/statutory law at the Federal level would answer that question.
Unless blogging is a whole lot more lucrative than I thought, I'm not sure this applies to most bloggers.
As for those who do make/spend upwards of $100K per year encouraging others to contact their Federal officials (moveon.org, etc...), well, that's another case.
What I'm not clear on is why this amendment is even necessary, other than to close a potential loophole in an already oppressive political speech law.
As for the PRNewsWire stunt by GrassrootsFreedom.org saying that it's going to affect bloggers - well, I'm not so sure about that.
It's also perfectly clear that the proposed amendments (in this case, the amendment section 216, which amends 2 U.S.C.A. ยง 1606) make it a civil, not a criminal offense. The offense , which requires only a preponderance of the evidence, is punishable under the new amendment by a fine of up to $100,000, based on the "extent and gravity" of the violation. You have 60 days to remedy the filing requirement after you're notified of the violation by the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate. If you fix it within this time you're not subject to the liability.
How much does Porkbusters.org pull in every three months?
I have to agree with Subman Dave: this does not appear to apply to most bloggers, at least it certainly doesn't apply to me.
Vote Conservative!!
And while we're at it, we should register all Muslims and homosexuals, or ... Oh, wait, but that would enrage the ACLU, wouldn't it??
This will affect organizations and is unconstitutional, but it will not affect bloggers:
`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.
Tell me how many bloggers are spending or receiving $25,000 per quarter for grassroots lobbying?
Words can not express my shock, anger and disbelief. The anger that I feel is very close to the anger to what I felt when I saw the second plane fly into the WTT. The thought of noving to Nevada just to vote against this clown has already crossed my mind. Bring on Rudi!
It's a bit funny commenting on my own post, but--
The bill has two separate components. The registration requirements for a "grassroots lobbying firm" are spelled out in detail, and wouldn't apply to bloggers.
BUT it separately defines "lobbyist" (and lobbyists are required to register with Congress and report, so it doesn't have to spell this out) to include anyone who is "paid" by a "client" to motivate the public to contact Congress. See section 1(a): "a) Definitions- Section 3 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying...,"
This is the first time that individuals talking to other individuals would be classed as lobbyists.
I suppose the "client" requirement would exclude bloggers getting contributions. But it probably would include folks who blog for an organization, e.g., Cato. And it wouldn't just cover blogging. I'm on a number of email alert lists -- NRA, SAF, Goldwater Institute -- and sending emails to more than 500 persons would likely to covered, if someone gets paid to do it.
Wow. Scary stuff. Nice report. I'm going to cover it on my site too, as should every blogger. Keep up the good work.
I just called the office of Sen. Feinstein (D.-CA) to (politely) protest this bill. The staffer who answered my call claims that this bill will only affect lobbyists and will have no effect on Web logs at all. Since I'm not a lawyer, I didn't argue the point, but simply said "I hope that's true."
So there's at least one Senator's office's take on the meaning of the bill. I'm profoundly dubious about it, but thought I should post about it for the record.
Well, McCain and Feingold. And it confirms my view that Reid is one of the worst members of the Senate.
On the surface, as described here, it seems like a damned silly idea.
I can see what the proposal is attempting to do in terms of trying to place measurable qualities on the idea of "who is a professional campaigner." I think the enforcement of such a law however will continue to become trickier and tricker as time goes on given 1) the increasing number of ways paid campaigners will be able to influence public opinion, and 2) the increasing number of ways that amateurs (you and I) can influence public opinion. The intersection of professional and amateur is becoming grayer and grayer (it is already very gray), so any attempt to place hard qualities on either will stand a greater and greater chance of failing into the future.
This is only one of a sudden plethora of Dem attempts to slay free speech in the two weeks since they attained majority status.
They're advancing on multiple fronts: against Global Warming critics, against talk radio, against bloggers and emailers who criticize academics, and even against the "maked brainwashing" of the show "24."
Take a look: http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=957
As the post points out, we've embarked on the New Age of Tolerance.
All the more reason to vote out every single incumbent.
It would also hit grassroots groups like ours (National Taxpayers Union) that activate people who don't join as dues-paying members. Good news is that the Senate just accepted a Bennett Amendment to strike Section 220 from the bill by a vote of 55-43.
You may be putting it lightly, since the "500 readers" condition applies to any blog "directed at" more than "500 members of the general public," rather than simply accessed by.
Seeing as how just about every blog fits that description in terms of access, and I certainly don't know any bloggers who wouldn't want to reach more than 500, it could effectively apply to nearly all news and opinion bloggers.
I know this is off topic, but I had to comment on it:
seems like there is no one in the GOP
aspiring for president that is worthy!
America's mayor? very bad background
McCain (in addition to this posted) a man to please everyone at any time--esp.the far right nutters
Mitt Romney? nah
what about Joe Lieberman? no one is sure which party he favors, and if a Black and a woman can run, so too a Jew, right?
Tom Tancredo, CO
Jim Gilmore, VA
Ron Paul, TX
Joe Lieberman is a liberal in everything except for his support for the war. If that is your only issue, he's your man.
Tancredo's Holy Grail issue is Illegal immigration
Gilmore, is a relative unknown but was a pretty solid conservative while Governor of Virginia. He's a bit too enthusiastic in his support for the war on drugs and enforcing existing gun laws for my taste, but he seems to be the real deal as far as traditional conservatism goes.
Ron Paul is a libertarian in GOP clothing. He is a great, but unelectable candidate. His support for libertarian ideals vis a vis completly open borders, elimination of tarrifs and industry subsidies, hostility toward unions, elimination of the department of education and IRS, Withdrawal from the UN and isolationism as International policy (among other things) would make him unpalatable to the soft squishy center of the political spectrum.
You won't hear much about these candidates in the MSM because they are too conservative. The MSM will be cheerleaders for the big three because any one of them would be more acceptable to leftists than someone who is actually conservative.
Personally, I think Gilmore is our best bet so far. He has a solid conservative record to placate the base, but isn't a fundamentalist or zealot (would be portrayed by the leftists as such, but really isn't) so the wishy washy wouldn't be completely turned off by him.
If any of the big three candidates get the GOP nomination, I predict a massive non-turnout of the conservative base and a Demo victory in 08.
Maybe Claire Wolfe is right after all: "America's at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but to early to shoot the bastards."
Like the previous comment noted: don't forget to give McCain his due for launching this sort of crap.
The libs are having another go at the "fairness doctrine." Does this mean that CBS, NBC, ABC, and just about every major american newspaper will tout a token non-liberal?
Damn Liberals. We can all thank the Clintons for giving the Chinese the capacity to shoot space weaponry also our Dear President for refusing to prosecute them for vandalizing trashing and theiving our White House when they left, also for keeping all the Clinton people and policies as a shadow government even though he doesn't have to.
This sounds really outrageous. If you hadn't done the research, I'd chalk it up to urban legend.
"Damn liberals?" That's a ridiculously divisive term that is precisely what the real powers of be want you to believe. "Us v. Them" mentality on a very simplistic level. Do you really think that Clinton was in charge of anything?
Let's show some sophistication when analyzing "deep politics." Follow the money, eh?
Acharya S
TruthBeKnown.com
One more reason to vote for anyone but McCain.
(Yes, I know Reid introduced it, but it was McCain that opened the door for restrictions on political speech)