Posted on 01/18/2007 4:50:46 AM PST by roguejew1965
Thomas Paine is turning over in his grave as we speak. Both Republicans and Democrats are looking to squash our Constitutional Freedom to criticize our own government, a G-d given right that patriotic men and women fought and died for.
Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill 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, as lobbyists are required.
(Excerpt) Read more at mensnewsdaily.com ...
No more than 499 hits on any given post.
????Huh????
America has not only lost it's way, but has wandered so far off the path that it can't see it any more.
More lobbyists, is that the solution?
Related thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1769328/posts
The Section reads in full:
`(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 one 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.
That doesn't read to me that any blogger that want to voice his opinion will be subjected to this. It reads to me like if someone PAYS a blogger to post things then the blogger would be required to file.
I'm not trying to defend the bill I just don't think Viguerie has it right and to trying just to scare people.
I'm with you on this one. The language says to me that if a church, club, organization, etc. hires someone to contact the public and urge them to write their congressman, then the reporting requirements apply to the company that was hired, not the organization.
I've posted the language previously (post #38)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1766586/posts
and asked for comments. I've yet to hear from anyone competent that the language applies to the organizations themselves. If it did, I'd get excited about this, but I'm holding fire right now.
I think the NRA has some great points about this though.
http://www.nraila.org/GrassrootsAlerts/read.aspx
It should be stricken.
I (the jury) is still out on this one .. because what exactly do they mean by "pays"
Do advertisements or donations fall under that category
Would FR or other blogs be effected if we post phone numbers and address and tell others to write to our congressman??
And most importantly .. how would the "interrupt" the meaning of that law?
The blogs are paid for ad placement. Some of the larger ones work out their own deals, and the smaller ones have ads related to a given topic placed via Google ads. You're looking at the registration of every blog owner with any income. It'll have a chilling effect.
grrr .. need more coffee .. lots of coffee
how would the "interrupt" the meaning of that law?
Should be
how would the COURTS "interrupt" the meaning of that law?
"who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters"
Limit the number of hits to under 500 and the law won't apply.
Let's say a hypothetical FReeper cares passionately about a given issue, takes the time to produce massive amounts of research, and posts a series of threads that end up influencing the course of legislation. It's happened before. It's not a stretch to think that some sorehead would demand that the source be identified, in order to ascertain that this was not paid "lobbying." Would you continue to speak out on such forums and blogs, if there were any likelihood of being tracked down by government functionaries and lawyers? Who would bear the cost of any such investigation?
very good point
that's why I asked .. how would the Court interrupt the meaning of this law if passed
Because to me, it sounds like an infringement of free speech
I'm not a lawyer .. and I think we need some lawyers to weigh in on this argument
What we need is more regulations to kill it. McCain-Feingold has not worked nearly well enough!
Mark
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.