Political Bloggers Could Be Required To Register Or Face Jail Time

Information Week. ^ | January 17 2007 | Mitch Wagner

[jmc1969]

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.

[theBuckwheat]

Time to consider offshore (non-us) hosting:

http://www.google.com/search?q=offshore+anonymous+hosting&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

[proud American in Canada]

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

Some major cognitive dissonance going on with the name and the mission... either that or... yeah... it's a smokescreen.

This bill must never pass. The freedom of the Internet must be protected, and here, I think liberal Dems would agree.

[Christian4Bush]

Re: #9

"You may use whatever is necessary, but I want them alive. NO DISINTEGRATIONS."

[vetvetdoug]

even if it does the SCOTUS will strike it down

I wouldn't bet the farm on it. The SCOTUS is almost just another branch of the Politburo.

[BMC1]

And the demoncrats accuse Republicans of taking away rights.

Welcome to the world of socialism. The demoncrats want to control free speech along with every aspect of our lives.

[conservative in nyc]

We've seen this language before a while back. I think Jim Robinson posted a thread about a similar bill in a previous life. I'll try to find it.

My guess is that as long as you aren't paid by a lobbyist for posting here, it won't apply to you. I've certainly not seen one red cent from anyone - and don't want it.

What it DOES do, if I recall correctly, is give a leg up to groups like Common Cause, AARP and other so-called "good-government" membership associations, since they are exempt from its provisions if they only contact their own members to call their Congressmen. But if you and I get together, create a new group against an issue, and pay someone to create an awareness campaign for people to call their Congressmen on a particular issue, we might unknowingly get tripped up by it.

[proud American in Canada]

Let's forget that FR is not a blog

LOL!!! I love who the media keeps misunderstanding this. They really don't get the difference between a forum and a blog.

[txhurl]

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.'"

I'm so glad there's no reprise for someone knowingly and unwillingly failing to disclose $90K in his fridge. I mean, that would be un-cool.

[onyx]

Point taken.

But Vitter is now co-sponsoring Amendment 20, with Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), to remove Section 220 from the bill, GrassRootsFreedom.com says

[Right Wing Assault]

What would happen if every conservative in the country registered as a lobbyist? The would have tens of million of forms to process and the system would crash.

(Or, they would bring in a bunch of illegal Spanish speaking employees to process them.)

[DBrow]

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1pcs.txt.pdf

Scrool to sectiion 220.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Interesting line:

The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means... [snip] ...except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.

Translation: "None of these restrictions apply to unions."

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[smoothsailing]

For now at least, the bill (S.1) has not passed. Sen.Gregg introduced an amendment to the bill today allowing for the Presidential line-item veto.

This infuriated the dems, who refused to allow a vote on the amendment. The Republicans retaliated by invoking cloture on S.1. The bill is stalled.

[weegee]

Hillary's goon squad wants to kneecap LGF and other posters who report investigative work. Whether it is genuinely Hillay's goons or other DNC operatives, the goal is clear, to silence the opposition.

[txhurl]

So, he wanted to make us register before he didn't want to make us register?

OR

Is this a warning to the right vis-a-vis the Fairness Doctrine? I admit I'm ignorant of the man's principles or stance.

[Mo1]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery


4. S.88 : A bill to increase the penalty for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure requirements.
Sponsor: Sen Vitter, David [LA] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.


17. S.AMDT.10 to S.1 To increase the penalty for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure requirements.
Sponsor: Sen Vitter, David [LA] (introduced 1/10/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/12/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 10 as modified agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 81 - 6. Record Vote Number: 9.



S.AMDT.10
Amends: S.1 , S.AMDT.3
Sponsor: Sen Vitter, David [LA] (submitted 1/10/2007) (proposed 1/10/2007)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To increase the penalty for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure requirements.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S395

STATUS:

1/10/2007:
Amendment SA 10 proposed by Senator Vitter to Amendment SA 3. (consideration: CR S323; text: CR S323)
1/11/2007:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S415)
1/12/2007:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S485, S489)
1/12/2007:
Amendment SA 10 as modified agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 81 - 6. Record Vote Number: 9.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:1:./temp/~bd1Hky::|/bss/d110query.html|

S.AMDT.20
Amends: S.1 , S.AMDT.3
Sponsor: Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] (submitted 1/10/2007) (proposed 1/11/2007)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To strike a provision relating to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S400

STATUS:

1/11/2007:
Amendment SA 20 proposed by Senator Bennett to Amendment SA 3. (consideration: CR S438; text: CR S438)
1/12/2007:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S486)
1/16/2007:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S551)
COSPONSORS(7):

Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] - 1/10/2007
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] - 1/11/2007
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 1/11/2007
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 1/12/2007
Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 1/12/2007
Sen Thune, John [SD] - 1/12/2007
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 1/16/2007

[onyx]

Lools like someone in the GOP leadership took him to the woodshed.

[Petronski]

Yeah, yeah let me guess...

Don't put your shabby words in my mouth.

[weegee]

They want names so they can have Foleygate and Limbaughgate and Bennetgate scandals on all the bloggers of influence.

YOU WILL BE POLITICALLY HARASSED. After having seen the photos of swastikas and arson on Republican homes in 2004, there is no way in Hell I would let the Democrats hunt me down. They mean death.

[Peach]

Well, I hope everyone is happy with the Democrat leadership. Bad as the Republicans were, it's nothing to what's going to be shoved down our throats.