Bill to Treat Bloggers as Lobbyists Defeated

Lawrence Person writes "The attempt to require political bloggers to register as lobbyists previously reported by Slashdot has been stripped out of the lobbying reform bill. The vote was 55 to 43 to defeat the provision. All 48 Republicans, as well as 7 Democrats, voted against requiring bloggers to register; all 43 votes in favor of keeping the registration provision were by Democrats."

Comments

I feel a great distubance

[ArcherB]

It's as if a 100 million free-speech loving liberals cried out and were suddenly silenced.

(Actually, they were silenced when their heads exploded like Dantooine when they found out that it was Republicans who blocked the bill.)

Good

[bmajik]

Can anyone explain why there are _any_ limits on political speech? Isn't that the most important kind of speech to protect? Why do you need to "register" as a PAC?

Isn't there already a law that limits how much political speech can happen leading up to an election and who can say it?

We can all find the bad in pretty much every law on the books. What i can't find is the "good" about any political-speech-restriction laws.

There are lots of voices out there that i'd just as soon not have to hear, but silencing them via government intervention seems pretty unAmerican (for historical values of "American").

Re:Good

[slizz]

Well it seems to me that if you are paid to express a certain opinion, that expression isn't comparable to the expression of a personal opinion, i.e. free speech. Putting restrictions on an idea that someone is paid to put out doesn't seem to be a restriction of free speech, because there is no restriction on the idea itself, just the "advertising" of that idea. "Advertising" seems to be a better way of viewing lobbying than "free speech," and there should be restrictions on advertising, I think (although it's definitely a murky issue).

Re:Good

[dangitman]

Can anyone explain why there are _any_ limits on political speech?

This is about money, not speech. You can say anything you want. But you can't get paid for doing anything you want. I think speech should be free - you don't need money to speak. If receiving money changes what you will say - then what's that all about? it's amazing how many people confuse money and speech, although I suspect the confusion is deliberate in many cases.

Re:Democrats

[asuffield]

"Our" side? They are rich American politicians. You are posting on slashdot. They are not on your side.

It is a mistake to think of "us vs them" as "democrats vs republicans", whichever way around you think of it. Everybody in congress is on the same side, and it's not your one.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[ZachPruckowski]

Please, read the actual bill. It says you must reach 500 people AND make $100,000 working as a paid shill. Not OR!!!

Please don't link to a propaganda piece by a professional conservative lobbyist and claim it to be equal evidence to the above cited UCLA law professor and the above cited Orginal Bill. Payment and Reach were considered separately in the bill. Why don't you read the actual bill, and see if that alleviates your concerns.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[ZachPruckowski]

I did read it. Here's what it says:
(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.'


$100,000 is an extrapolation of $25,000 over a whole year. The bill said simply that a person who makes $25,000 a quarter for political astroturfing ($100,000 a year salary) or is given the same amount to spend on astroturfing is a lobbyist. It's straightforward, true, and doesn't affect bloggers at all.

Re:are you that naive?

[TobascoKid]

Who wants to limit the freedom of the press?

Everyone. There have always been people who have wanted to silence "the other side". Not just politics, but religion and science and pretty much every other field of human endeavour where people disagree.