Political Bloggers Could Be Required To Register Or Face Jail Time

An outfit called GrassRootsFreedom.com is reporting that the U.S. Senate is considering legislation that would require political bloggers with readership over 500 to register as lobbyists. If they fail to register, they could face criminal penalties up to one year in jail.

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself," according to a statement from GrassRootsFreedom.com

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) introduced an amendment Jan. 9 "to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.'" But Vitter is now co-sponsoring Amendment 20, with Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), to remove Section 220 from the bill, GrassRootsFreedom.com says.

GrassRootsFreedom.com says:

The legislation regulates small, legitimate nonprofits, bloggers, and individuals, but creates loopholes for corporations, unions, and large membership organizations that would be able to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars, yet not report.

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/01/political_blogg.html

They aren't going down without a fight. But this particular law is unenforceable, it's main purpose is to scare people off.

Deep Throat: A few more thoughts about Watergate
By Bob Harris
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/07.03.97/scoop-9727.html

"""I have told Woodward everything I know about the Watergate case, except the Mullen Company's tie to the CIA."--Robert F. Bennett, testifying before House Special Committee on Intelligence, July 2, 1974.

Robert Bennett was the head of Robert R. Mullen and Co., a CIA front headquartered in the very same building as the CIA's Domestic Operations Division. The Mullen Co. did legitimate PR work; it also did PR for other CIA fronts and provided cover abroad for CIA operations. Bennett's most notable employee was Howard Hunt, a former chief of covert actions for the Domestic Operations Division of the CIA. ""

Now Bennett is a Senator from Utah. Go figure.

:puke:

Knowing of Woodward's intelligence background prior to employment by the WashPost. For that matter, Ben Bradlee's ties to intelligence during his war years and post-war years isn't exactly common knowledge either.

Gimme a break.

Or has his listeningship dropped below 500 yet?

:shrug:

GrassRootsFreedom.com

Registrant Contact:
American Target Advertising
Richard Viguerie ********@americantarget.com)
+1.7033927676
Fax:
9625 Surveyor Court, Suite 400
Manassas, VA 20110
US


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Viguerie

Nice researching where this nonsense came from. :thumbsup:

Too bad though...for a brief shining moment there, I envisioned Rush with a cancelled radio show, and a big red ball-gag in his mouth! :)

Glad to see I'm not nuts. I should have read the whole thread before http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2693427&mesg_id=2693573">I posted.

I just couldn't see what the problem with section 220 was. Now I can guess. It would require Viguerie to disclose his shady connections and efforts.

I thought I smelled something fairly putrid.

Good catch! Thanks! And Welcome to DU! You're a great asset already!

:thumbsup:

I know it's not the same as having your very own blog (which, as a non-blogger I find discriminating - what makes a blogger more credible than a poster).

Would be sort of fun if everyone that posts to a message board bombarded them with a registration form request. :evilgrin:

<<<<<
The legislation regulates small, legitimate nonprofits, bloggers, and individuals, but creates loopholes for corporations, unions, and large membership organizations that would be able to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars, yet not report. >>>>

now why doesn't THIS section surprise me?

Columnists, left and right wing magazines, newsletters, etc?

ANYONE who decides to talk about politics in public will be classified as a lobbyist! :eyes:

So ... they have to make at least $25,000 to be considered a lobbyist? It doesn't sound like the same section that was described in the original article, even though the article references "Section 220." I wonder if it's a genuine misunderstanding or if GrassRootsFreedom.com is trying to stir up trouble for some reason? I don't get it. :shrug:

Thanks for the info. :hi:

I should have known. It's always the conservatives that fear disclosure. Wish i'd seen oNobodyo's post sooner.

Follow the wikipedia link in oNobodyo's post for "the rest of the story":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2693427&mesg_id=2693452

Thanks again! :toast:

And I just sent an email through Vitter's website.

Thanks for posting this.

(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 1 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.--

when they mean SIMULATE.

I'm going to play the Bush Game. In this game, YOU interpret what the law means, and not a court.

I think this law only applies to bloggers who actively advertise to specific sites. However, simply seeing the name of a link isn't enough- there must be active involvement on the part of the linked site to advertise to other readers. A linked list doesn't count; it must be an obvious advertisement.

Further, my own interpretation of this law tells me that bloggers cannot be said to be communicating with others unless the communication is taking place with their knowledge. For example, if 500 people see my shopping list without my actually intending for those people specifically, jointly and severally, to see my shopping list, I cannot be said to have communicated my shopping list to anyone. They may have read it, but I did not communicate it to them- even if I post it on a corkboard at a grocery store for all to see.

See how this works? Anything can be spun. Kos doesn't intend for anyone to see his site, just as Skinner doesn't intend for anyone to post on DU. We do it, like a mountain, because it is there- but I don't think anyone here actually intends anything they write to ever be read. :D

Gosh, that was easy.

They are aiming at us.

We are no lobbyists - we believe in the ideal of our country.

Can't bribe us - yeah, I bet that is pretty scary for Washinton, DC.

Joe

And I know there are plenty of people who will tsk-tsk that, but to hell with them. If you're willing to blindly follow without protest a law you know, balls to bones, doesn't deserve to BE a law... you aren't willing to behave like an American.

BUT - it is american. AND americans will be americans. It is our culture.

They could NEVER enforce such a law.

But it is interesting that they would try.

There are two things I'd really remember about us - that 1) We really are a republic first and that 2) You screw with us and we will run you out of town on a rail.

Makes us americans - I think.

Anyway, I guess we are starting to hit a nerve - good!!

Joe

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/17/new_report_examines_.html
Boing Boing: New report examines Web 2.0's effect on 2006 election cycle

Vote here:

That this was dreamt up by a couple of Republicans?

I'm not seeing anything in Section 220 that would require a "political blogger" per se to register as a lobbyist.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110PQCEmc:e38473:">SEC. 220. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING.

Section 220 repeatedly references "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" and seems make an appropriate distinction between grassroots lobbying (not a target) and paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.

The thresholds for an entity or "grassroots lobbying firm" that would be required to register don't appear to me to be out of bounds:



So, the person/entity

must be paid more than $25,000; or have expenditures of more that $25,000 for lobbying efforts in a quarter.

AND

needs to target at least 500 people to urge them do something to influence a member of Congress to take the action the group/person/blog has been paid to advocate.

I wouldn't expect a netroots activist/blogger/organization that was engaged in advocating some legislation or action (like impeachment) to object to registering and filing the required semi-annual reports if their activities met the requirements.

Those that exceed the required thresholds for expenditures or fees would have reason to be proud -- their efforts to engage investors/supporters and to engage ordinary citizens would probably be pretty successful if they exceeded the thresholds. If the entity is collecting or spending $25,000 per quarter to engage citizens in grassroots lobbying, the information required for the lobbyist disclosure reports would be part of the accounting required to make the appropriate filings with the FEC and IRS (as a PAC, for profit, or non-profit partnership or corp of some sort).

What am I missing here? What specific provisions are particularly problematic and why?

beause you know that more than 500 people are looking at the threads at DU.

Register!!! Give us you name, address, phone #, SSN...sure, lots of people will pony up that
information.

Does this mean that they have to pay for the counter? Seriously, counter's are not mandatory
items on a blog. I don't bother with one and don't plan to. I could care less. But they
have a cute answer. Maybe it's the blog counter lobby behind this;)

We need to know which committee is getting this. It is a great advantage to have a Democratic
Congress. This won't come up unless the leadership lets it. I can't imagine them doing this
to the net.

Note: The language in the bill equates political bloggers with "K Street Lobbyists." Uh, there's
a big difference. The vast majority of us are not in the business of giviving large sums of cash
to the Congress. There's fundraising by a few like Atrios and KOS but that's not the routine.

oops forgot to quote this.:relevant comments from the link in OP,.. "Funny, because you don't hear actual grass roots complaining about the bill.

The bill is designed to prevent corporate money from filtering into campaigns by groups posing as "grass roots". I suspect that a corporation is behind "grassrootsfreedom.com" and not actual grass roots.

The overall bill is designed to curb the influence of lobbyists.

So my question for GrassRootsFreedom.com is WHO FUNDS THEM? Do they have corporate board members? Lobbyists and corporations oppose this bill big time - so they are my first suspect.
R. Lawson Posted on 1/17/2007 22:59 PM EST | Permalink |
One more point - I have read the bill. It is a huge step towards ethics reforms. Find me one major grass roots organization opposing the bill, then let's talk.

In the mean time, who are the people behind GrassRootsFreedom.com?

Finally, Public Citizen is a great watchdog so the GrassRootsFreedom.com attack on them is simply amazing. You know who hates Public Citizen the most? Corporations!

Yes, that is the very same organization Ralph Nader formed - that forced car manufacturers to include seatbelts and prevent fuel tank explosions. What an aweful group!!!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Viguerie">Richard Viguerie is behind GrassRootsFreedom.com (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3146039&mesg_id=3146047">Post #6 from oNobodyo).

The provisions of Section 220 are not as he describes. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3146039#3146073">Post #26)

with rhetoric, candy, dinners, travel and other perks.

When you try to sway plain old people with plain old rhetoric, that's something else entirely.

Do they require those organizations to register as lobbyists? Or is that limited to ownership and the idea of "do as I say or get fired"?

This seems like an attack of on FREE and PEACEFUL SPEECH.

but if we have to register as lobbyist wouldn't that make anything used to "lobby" tax deductible? Computers, the the home office, internet connections, tickets to ball games, Providing we take a "client" or specific lobby-ee.
P.S. Who do we call to get all the free swag to send to our reps at the state and federal levels?
Quandray to use or not the symbol of sarcasm?????

Even the very idea. :puke: :mad:

"Register Communists, not firearms!"

Viguerie and Wildmon attempting to censor truth.

Christo-fascists desperate to lie and steal for a shred of the power that has slipped out of their bloody grasp.