Slashdot Mirror
Political Bloggers May Be Forced to Register
Thebes writes "Under Senate Bill S.1, political bloggers with a readership of over 500 who comment on policy matters or hope to incite 'grassroots' action amongst their readers would be forced to register with the Federal Government as lobbyists."
The key here is "Paid attempts." Bloggers who don't receive an income in exchange for their work aren't affected. By the way, take a look at the person TFA cites as the source. It's bullshit FUD from Richard A. Viguerie, whose bread and butter is fundraising conservative causes and blogging about right-wing lobbying interests. The only people who will be affected by this legislation are BS-peddlers like him and all the fake think tanks and policy-pushing "advocacy groups" he raises money for.
brandelf: invalid ELF type 'KEEBLER'
For those who would like the full text of this bill see here. The article is just a bunch of FUD. The actual text that has the author so concerned, about a readership of greater than 500 counting as paid, is actually being misread. The actual text is "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." (from here). This means that you can be paid for grass roots lobbying and not have to register if you have less than 500 readers, which actually protects your rights.
Clones are people two.
The article is rather misleading. The section in question applies to astroturf operations, not bloggers:
...so it explicitly does not apply to what we normally think of as bloggers.
--MarkusQ
Well, according to the text of the actual bill this only applies to bloggers who are paid by lobbying firms. So, no. In this particular case, you need your papers in order if someone pays you to criticize them.
Even if this passes, I can't imagine a judge would uphold it in court.
Much like McCain - Fiengold...right?
So, my grassroots lobbying is ok as long as nobody is paying attention? And if I do post something which gathers a political following, suddenly I've got papers to fill out?
Why would anyone bother in the first place? The point of grassroots lobbying is to influence a large number of people. Paid lobbyists, OTOH, are paid instead to influence only a handful of very important people. IOW, this bill would effectively stifle citizens groups fighting for their rights in favor of corporate lobbyists.
So, by all means pass this bill! Then act surprised when DRM becomes a mandatory component of computers. Act outraged when Corporate America(TM) patents everything short of tying your own shoes. Protest the tax breaks given to Big Oil. But don't dare blog about it unless you can be certain that nobody cares about your stupid opinion (they probably don't anyway, but one can hope).
Nothing like stifling democracy by restricting fourth amendment freedoms.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Even if this passes, I can't imagine a judge would uphold it in court.
What, that paid political hacks must register their paid attempts to influence elections? Those laws have already been tested and are considered valid. I guess you think that fraud should be legalized too, since that's just free speech to separate someone from their money by concealing the truth.
Learn to love Alaska
4473s don't register guns, they are a way to standardize the data communicated during the background check process and the bound book entries the dealer must make. Government agencies can obtain them only with a warrant.
The dealer keeps them for 20 years. If you want to fret about something, we are required to keep our bound books forever.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Not only do you have to be paid by a "Grassroots Lobbying Firm" but also that firm`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'
which I would hope is a small subset of firms since that is a substantial amount.
Oh yeah? FTFA:
"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers."
Here is Section 220 of 2007 S.1. It says it modifies 2 USC 1602. Section 220 appends certain clauses to 2 USC 1602. You are somewhat correct in that appended to item 7 of that code is the line "Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying." It also adds the following item: "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." This would SEEM to indicate that if you're not getting paid, you're not who they're talking about. But then you have to examine 18 (C) which is also appended to that section of the US Code, because it defines the meaning of registrant. I quote:
Thus if you speak on behalf of, say, a political party of which you are a member, you are a member of a registrant as well (because the party would be required to register.) Also if we look at both 2 USC 1602 and 2007 S.1 Section 220, which deal with definitions, neither one defines "paid"! Kind of a serious oversight there given that now we have to ask the supremes (eventually) whether ad revenues count or not. The closest it gets is the following text:
`(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.
This is where the number 500 comes from. Incidentally, this particular item (B) is a particularly bad loophole in this law! It says that as long as you are not trying to influence more than 499 people at once, it's not a paid attempt to influence the general public. This is not good, not good at all.
Jump back to 2 USC 1602 for a moment with me and look at the government's definition of Lobbyist prior to any adoption of this bill.
The term "lobbyist" means any individual who is employed or retained by a client for financial or other compensation for services that include more than one lobbying contact, other than an individual whose lobbying activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in the services provided by such individual to that client over a six month period.
So currently if you receive any compensation for lobbying more than one person you are a lobbyist, unless your lobbying is less than 20% of the time spent working for the individual who hired you to lobby for them. That means they could pay you minimum wage for 101 hours; for 81 of those hours you sit on your ass and read the funny papers, the other 20 hours you
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, if you get paid by a political campaign to influence a large number of people, you have to register as a lobbyist. However, the people writing the article see this as a bad thing. To me, it smells like they don't want *their* employeers revealed.
Grassroots organizations that are paid for by the GOP / Dems just look pathetic. On the other hand, a witty anonymous blogger paid for by the GOP / Dems can present themselves as credible and balanced; in the scheme of campaigns, this is not legal.
And yes, courts have held up campaign laws as reasonable limits on free speech over and over again. Are you really saying "being paid to write and distributing a pamphlet" is so fundamentally different from "being paid to write and distribute a pamp^H^H^H^H BLOG! ON THE INTERNET!" that it should abide by a second set of laws?
To put things in perspective, Slashdoters often complain there's fundamentally no difference in "doing X" and "doing X ON THE INTERNET!" so they shouldn't be patentable. Why did we suddenly decide "being a lobbyist" and "being a lobbyist ON THE INTERNET!" are so fundamentally different?
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.
For example, if ExxonMobil pays me $1000 to write a blog post that urges my (over 500) readers to write their Congressional delegation to vote in favor of a bill that opens up ANWR, I would have to register as a lobbyist.
This bill is intended to call fake grassroots astroturfing what it is--lobbying.
The difference here is that the article referenced basically cuts out an important adjective: "paid". The bill wants to address PAID political bloggers, not someone stating their own opinion.
Traditional media stating their opinion is called Journalistic Opinion pieces. Some guy on the internet stating their opinion to lots of people is called a blogger.
Traditional media *being paid by campaigns to say what the campaign wants* does NOT produce Journalistic Opinions. Anyone being paid for an opinion piece about a campaign must register.
To apply the exact same point you made, but with the correct assumptions, what makes the paid political blogger so special that he doesn't have to abide by the same rules as print media?
You linked to "the Democrats", but that list (which doesn't indicate the party of its cosponsor senators) is of both parties (I added their parties):
So that's 4:12:1 Republican:Democrat:Independent cosponsors. One of the Republicans is the Republican Minority Leader, another was the Republican Majority Leader. It reads more like a list of the "Conservative" members of the Senate: Webb (D-VA) was a Republican, even Reagan's Navy Secretary. Feinstein (D-CA) and Salazar (D-CO) are among the most Conservative Senators, regardless of party. Menendez (D-NJ) just barely (because he didn't distinguish himself) won his election against the very Conservative Tom Kean Jr. Lieberman (I-CT) is so "Conservative" that he's really a Republican, but ran as "Independent" to fool his Democratic state into voting for him after Democrats voted him out in the primaries. The bill's sponsor, Reid (D-NV) is fairly Conservative, but is also Senate Majority Leader, which is an inherently "conservative" position. And Schumer (D-NY) is somewhat "Conservative", because he's running the Democrats' national Senate campaign organization. Leahy (D-VT) and Brown (D-OH) are pretty liberal, but that end of the spectrum is in the tiny minority: of the 18% of all the senators in the chamber, who are helping to sponsor this bill, only 2% of those are liberal cosponsors.
The article we're discussing mentions only 2 senators, both Republicans. Vitter (R-LA) introduced the "criminal penalties" amendment that is the bill's teeth, though now a cosponsor with Bennett (R-UT) of the amendment to remove that penalty - though Bennett is still a sponsor of the bill itself:
So while your comment is correct to point out that Democrats are among those powermongers who are trying to control regular citizens from entering and affecting the political process, it's wrong to say (as it did) that it's just Democrats. The "bipartisan" coalition here is mainly a "Conservative" one. Which is extremely relevant, because "Conservatives" claim to want government out of interfering with people, want equal access to politics, prize the Constitution and its Bill of Rights above any other government construct. But the "Conservatives" are acting contrary to that. As usual, with the "Conservative" movement opposing powermongers until they get some power, then abusing it worse than any other kind of political animal.
--
make install -not war
Come on Slashdot, I'm getting sick of the way I'm being lead around by my nose. At the very least this is a knee jerk reactionary piece of drek, at best it's a forebearing to a law that isn't even out yet and has been misproven multiple times in this comment section already (read the law is the simple key).
Next time you want to bitch about a law LINK THE LAW not what some idiots have on a website.
Finally would someone explain why idiots who want to do grassroots style work doesn't want to be labeled as a lobbyst. HINT THEY ARNT JAILING THEM! THEY ARE TELLING THEM TO BE LISTED AS A LOBBYST IF THEY ARE PAID FOR THEIR BLOGGING WORK AND HAVE MORE THEN 500 READERS! IF THEY DONT AND KNOW THEY SHOULD BE LISTED THEN THEY ARE JAILED.
Being a lobbyst doesn't mean you're guilty of a crime, except maybe lying to your public. At least it'll prove who is being paid and who is actually doing the work they actually support, which is perhaps the only reason this is being met by so much resistance because they are afraid they'll be found out to not be so alturistic as they claim to be.
Quote from the parent post: "But here are the Democrats assaulting our freedoms again..."
Quote from the article: "That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA)." The person who introduced the bill is a Republican.
I notice that those who call themselves Republican are often dishonest and more interested in expressing their own anger than in managing government. See my summary of Republican corruption. I encourage you to write your own summary and send it to members of Congress.
Pardon?
It's somehow my fault that I'm a big guy and have concealed carry, because some coked up mugger is going to hit up an 'easy' target instead / anyway?
Are you seriously suggesting that it is the fault of the people who support gun rights that old ladies are getting mugged?
You're arguing two separate issues as if they were connected. Lower crime; yes it's a great and admirable goal. But you don't have to eliminate guns to reduce crime. People don't commit crimes because they have guns, they commit crimes with guns. Knifes, bombs, it's all a symptom of society and not the object itself.
It's the same thing with nuclear weapons. It all depends on who has them and uses them. The object inherits the intent of the person who weilds the guy or has their thumb on the button.
Mozy, free online backup service
--
It doesn't say what I insinuate because you're quoting the article's interpretation of the bill (written by a guy who earns a living from lobbying on the Internet and has earned a living off special interest groups for the past 40 years) rather than the bill itself. The section says that anyone whose site receives less than 500 visitors is exempted from the regulations. It doesn't say that anyone who receives more than those 500 is not also exempted for other reasons. It's like if I said everyone under the age of 3 is immature. It doesn't mean everyone over the age of 3 is a reasonable, responsible person. All it says is exactly what it says: if you get less than 500 visitors, it doesn't matter whether someone paid you ten billion dollars to say what you wrote or if you did it for free. For anyone who is gaining attention, it does matter, because it influences the way people make decisions: and that always matters.
It's not just some Republican thing. That would be naive. It's possible that some large blogging sites with ties to the Democratic Party, the Green Party, and other groups will have to register as lobbyists as well. And they should. Just like a blogger that takes money from tobacco concerns, oil concerns, PETA, the cattle industry, a software company, or whoever else under the sun, should have to say, "Look, they paid me more than $25,000 to say this, so I said it." That doesn't mean what they said isn't true, but it shouldn't appear that the person said it out of the kindness of their heart or that they suddenly were inspired to write about it. I'm tired of reading fake news that I don't know whether to make heads or tails of just because some group of douchebags decided to get together, form a political action committee, and started handing out cheques under the guise of journalism.
Let's just think for a moment why someone who happens to stand to lose a lot of clout and large gobs of cash because he'll have to suddenly disclose where exactly the money for all his supposed concerned citizens and grassroots organisations comes from. Like I said, the fact that an organisation or political group paid someone to say something doesn't mean what was said is invalidated or false. But it's important to know who is pulling the strings behind some new "research" or a "breaking story" when it's being presented to you in an attempt to influence you before you go out and vote on that information or volunteer to do something about it or whatever it may be. This is maybe one of the most ethical Ethics Bills I've seen in a long time. With the recent passing by the HOR of the new law forbidding earmarked pork barrel projects from being slipped into appropriations bills without being posted on the Internet 48 hours prior for the public to witness, I'm honestly surprised in a good way by the Americans' legislature for once. Maybe all of this Mark Foley and Republican indictment stuff has scared the US Congress into at least giving the appearance of having learned a lesson.
brandelf: invalid ELF type 'KEEBLER'
See SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO.,118 U.S. 394 (1886).
I am not a crackpot.
After reading the entire legislation, including section 220, several things become apparent to me:
It seems to me that in the spirit of lobbying transparency, this bill is a step in the right direction. However, due to the vagueness of Section 220, with respect to several terms, and the fact that there does not appear to be an explicit exclusion for paid bloggers who maintain "official" blogs that are open to public viewing for organizations, I would recommend that anyone who is concerned about the freedom to engage in grassroots lobbying, to oppose section 220 until it addresses these concerns.
You can do this by contacting your senators and telling them to support the Bennett amendment to remove section 220 from S. 1..
If I have misread anything, please correct me.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas Gandhi
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You must have missed the part in the bill text where it says "Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying. "
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
You nitpicked his twisting of your point, but you twisted his just as much.
He said:
and you responded with:
Despite whatever you may think he may have implied, what he said was that a child does not have intent to kill, but that objects have purposes - which they do. Everything made by man has a purpose for which it was made.
The purpose of making guns and ammunition is to be able to shoot things. I will venture to say (my assumption) that most of the time these things are living things.
They ARE registered as a 501c org, and are subject to regulations that apply to such organizations. If they are paid by party to espouse particular viewpoints, they would need to disclose it.
Someone like Drudge or Kos, unless paid similarly, would not need to register.
This reminds me of the reporters who got caught recently getting paid by the administration to talk up the whole No Child Left Behind thing. It was paid editorialism being passed off as journalism. Saying "yay No Child Left Behind!" means significantly less if the author thereof is paying you tens of thousands of dollars to say it.
My argument has not been about the designer of the modern firearm, rather that trying to force guns off the streets isn't going to lower crime. Kids and toys are a digression. Well designed guns (which for my needs means that they hit what they're being shot at) can both be used to commit a crime but also exist as crime deterrants.
If someone uses a gun to deter crime, that is that guns purpose. Designed to kill, intended to deter.
Reducing the number of guns available to the general population will not lower crime.
Restricting the rights of all citizens (and specifically those who use guns responsibly and represent a signifigant majority or at least percentage of gun owners in the usa) just to advance a political adgenda to get a politician re-elected is crap. I don't mind having checks and balances in place for some purchases, but just saying that guns are bad and getting rid of them will reduce crime is not correct.
(you personally may not have made this argument but one of the op's did)
There are several examples made here about Washington DC, Switzerland, and Japan etc. It has everything to do with society, and very little to do with the relative availability of firearms.
Thats the ultimate point I've been trying to make, although you are correct that death without intent (accidents) happen to kids as well as adults.
Mozy, free online backup service
--
This is bullshit. The press release is by Richard Viguerie, who is the head of American Target Advertising. This basically affects his business because his business is astroturfing. So he seems to have started his own little astroturfing campaign to stop this bill from being passed:
a n_Target_Advertising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Viguerie
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americ
Read the bill. Pretty much everything in the press release is a lie. Shame on you, Slashdot.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?f riend=nytimes&court=us&vol=118&invol=394