Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lobbying backlash could hit bloggers
C/Net ^ | January 18, 2007 | Declan McCullagh

Posted on 01/18/2007 10:38:32 PM PST by Nachum

A bill that Senate Democrats have touted as a means to curb corruption in Washington could instead target some political bloggers with new regulations and even criminal penalties.

The legislation, which began as an attempt to rewrite federal lobbying laws in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal, has ballooned to more than 9,000 words and a thicket of complicated rules. It was the subject of a failed attempt by Senate Democrats on Wednesday to defeat a Republican filibuster over a line-item veto, and debate is continuing Thursday afternoon.

Much of the bill's wording is obtuse. But one section says that certain political bloggers who make or spend $25,000 per quarter and who encourage readers to contact their elected representatives would be forced to register as lobbyists--or face up to 10 years in prison.

"You have a First Amendment right to contact your congressperson and you have a First Amendment right to tell others to do so," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Now they're saying you have to report to the federal government if you're going to engage in this First Amendment-protected activity."

The controversial requirement lies in Section 220 of the massive bill, which supporters of the legislation say is intended to curb the practice of lobbyists setting up "astroturf" groups. But in a conference call on Thursday, a broad range of groups including the ACLU, the Free Speech Coalition, the Traditional Values Coalition and National Right To Life said it would hurt their own groups' abilities to influence Congress and place unreasonable restrictions on Internet politicking.

"We have concluded that this would certainly include bloggers," said Mark Fitzgibbons from American Target Advertising, which provides services to mostly conservative organizations. Fitzgibbons, who runs the GrassrootsFreedom.com advocacy site that opposes Section 220, warned that the legislation "has no regard for the media being used" and includes the Internet.

Under the legislation, a "grassroots lobbying firm" must register with the government or face civil and criminal penalties. "Grassroots lobbying" is defined as a person engaging in "paid efforts" to encourage the "general public to communicate their own views on an issue to federal officials." That person must also spend or receive at least $25,000 related to his or her political efforts over any three-month period.

A letter that Fitzgibbons wrote last week uses the example of a political blogger who raises money for a newspaper ad that costs $25,000 would be affected by the rule.

"Nobody I know doubts that the 'culture' of Washington and Congress itself need serious attention and cures," he wrote. "Attempts to regulate communications to the general public made by those who do not have Washington lobbyists, however, shifts the blame away from the real culprits within Congress and Washington."

The growing outcry over Section 220, especially from conservative groups including Gun Owners of America, has led some key supporters of the overall legislation to defect and oppose that language. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has said that he will vote for Amendment 20 by Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) to strip out Section 220.

"This provision actually has fairly limited impact, but the way it's written and the way the (current law) is written it's very confusing," Guinane said. "I think there's been some misinformation here that's whipped up some hysteria in the blogging community that's not justified."

Guinane acknowledged the language was confusing, and said that she would prefer to see it rewritten rather than completely eliminated through the Bennett amendment. "I'd rather see them clarify 220 so it's perfectly clear to everyone how limited the impact of this provision would be," she said.

Originally, Section 220 had only civil penalties (existing law specifies fines of up to $50,000). But last week, by a vote of 93-2, the Senate added criminal penalties for failing to "comply with any provision"--which is what, in part, caused the new outcry from grassroots groups that would be affected by it.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: backlash; bloggers; hit; lobbying
Could affect bloggers and maybe some radio people too. Can you think of some radio personalities who make more than $25K a year and tell their listeners to call politicians?
1 posted on 01/18/2007 10:38:34 PM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum
It might have - but Section 220 was removed from the Senate bill today in a 55-43 vote before the rest of the ethics bill passed the Senate. All 43 Senators who voted to keep the provision were Democrats.

Free speech and the right to petition the government dodged a bullet today. Next up - making sure Pelosi's House bill doesn't include any similar provision and/or that the grassroots lobbying "reform" doesn't rear its ugly head in a conference committee hashing out any House-Senate differences.
2 posted on 01/18/2007 10:43:31 PM PST by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

The US Senate wants the internet and talk radio controlled or dead. The senate is far more dangerous than al Queda.


3 posted on 01/18/2007 10:43:53 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Well, it's 2007. Time to get ready for 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
That's a slightly separate issue (with respect to talk radio), and is mainly being pushed by Maurice Hinchey and Dennis Kucinich in the House and the newly elected Socialist Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. The bill passed today wouldn't have imposed the fairness doctrine on talk radio.
4 posted on 01/18/2007 10:46:58 PM PST by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc

OK, but that doesn't change my opinion about our senate, especially RINO's like McCain, who would shut down free speech faster than would a Democrat.


5 posted on 01/18/2007 10:48:49 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Well, it's 2007. Time to get ready for 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1769882/posts

Grassroots Lobbying "Reform" Bill Fails in Senate

6 posted on 01/18/2007 10:58:52 PM PST by beyond the sea ( World Ending - Children and The Poor Hit Hardest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc
Well said.

This issue is so important.

Everyone in America should become familiar with this threat to free speech!

All talkshow hosts should discuss this some every day.

7 posted on 01/18/2007 11:01:03 PM PST by beyond the sea ( World Ending - Children and The Poor Hit Hardest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Republican/conservative lobbyists/bloggers = "corruption" (in the view of the Democrats)


8 posted on 01/18/2007 11:01:44 PM PST by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham

Saddam and the Democrat Congress both followed Joseph Stalin.


9 posted on 01/18/2007 11:07:38 PM PST by weegee (The Left is worried that '24' will have the same effect as LBJ's 'Daisy' mushroom ad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Hooray for the ACLU on this one.

OMG. Did I really say that?


10 posted on 01/18/2007 11:08:22 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I am becoming more and more "disillusioned" with our elected leaders...When will Dems suspend the right to vote for another party other than their own?


11 posted on 01/18/2007 11:21:18 PM PST by Dallas59 (HAPPY NEW YEAR 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
I am becoming more and more "disillusioned" with our elected leaders...When will Dems suspend the right to vote for another party other than their own?

Yes, like in Iraq, where they went to vote & Saddams name was the only one on the ballot!!! Wake up conservatives!!!

12 posted on 01/18/2007 11:39:18 PM PST by blondee123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
See This.
13 posted on 01/19/2007 2:51:48 AM PST by .30Carbine (Firstlove feelings always have at their core an intense desire to be with the beloved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Wow, did anyone actually read the proposed legislation? The people identified in the bill are lobbyists. Not bloggers, but astroturfing lobbyists... The following criteria has to be met in order to be affected by this law:

1 An Astroturfer with 1 or more clients
2 Reaching 500 people
3 Being paid $100,000 a year

With that said, it would be easy to ammend it in the future to apply to any political dissent. On the other hand, the existing laws requiring lobbyists and PACs to register seems to work quite well.


14 posted on 01/19/2007 3:15:07 AM PST by daveprg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: daveprg

What is an "Astroturfer?" I thought that was the stuff in Bill Clinton's pickup bed.


15 posted on 01/19/2007 4:09:16 AM PST by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: daveprg
"Works quite well"????

That means dave, or is likely to mean, dave, that you are a beneficiary of that law -- a member of the protected class. No rabble in the mix. All players have to kiss the ass of power and pay a stiff fee. Yes, indeed, does "work well".

16 posted on 01/19/2007 4:13:52 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

BUMP for later read.


17 posted on 01/19/2007 4:19:12 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Register to speak? Register to read is next.


18 posted on 01/20/2007 4:17:15 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson