[Winstonm]

"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."

I guess they can't take a joke.

[jikl]

Damn, does that mean if I criticise the US government I will end up in Guatanamo?

Sean

[luke warm]

sigh... netteller just stopped taking deposits from u.s. customers because of the antipoker bill... i'm starting to get a little peeved

[Winstonm]

"Policy matters"....

So if you have a blog that posts bills like this and reach 500 or more, Congress wants to treat you like a professional lobbyist? How sick is that?

What about economic blogs that talk about social security, the trade defecit, and such?

That would sure put a crimp in anit-war blogs, wouldn't it?

Micromanage someone else, will you Congress? Sheesh.

[mike777]

Do we really want bloggers or internet posters with political/economic views who have 500 or more worldwide readers to not be registered and issue reports with the government? Some government? Maybe the UN?

What next? Anyone can stand on a soapbox in the middle of the local town square and talk with over 500 people a year and not report to the government?

[glen]

Please report to the government as soon as Views on this thread hits 500 - though you might claim that some sets of views are by the same people, they will wonder why anyone would come back to this thread

[1eyedjack]

Pray tell. Once you have registered and reported to Congress, what happens next?

[helene_t]

Sorry, stupid question, but in what country does this story come from? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Byelorus? Or some fantasy country from one of Orwell's novels?

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Jan 19 2007, 04:45 AM, said:

Sorry, stupid question, but in what country does this story come from? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Byelorus? Or some fantasy country from one of Orwell's novels?

Must be Australia because it mentions the "Bush".

[pclayton]

Winston, you're toast. BBF will take up a collection for your legal bills dude

[Al_U_Card]

pclayton, on Jan 19 2007, 11:04 AM, said:

Winston, you're toast. BBF will take up a collection for your legal bills dude

Shhhhh! Winston works for homeland security! It is their latest attempt to entrap unsuspecting bloggers so that they can improve their arrest numbers and fill the empty places at Guantanamo. Didn't you ever wonder why he is so insistant?....oh wait a sec, someone is at the door....wearing dark glasses?...on a cloudy day?....uhh maybe its the Stevie Wonder Association for the Blind...? see you all later....mayb.
:
.

[cherdano]

For the record, this part of the bill has been voted down.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=1&vote=00017

helene_t, on Jan 19 2007, 11:45 AM, said:

Sorry, stupid question, but in what country does this story come from? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Byelorus? Or some fantasy country from one of Orwell's novels?

I think this is a little over the top. My understanding is that there have been a fair number of "fake grassroots" campaigns in the US, where a lobbyist group sets up fake blogs run by their PR departments, or pays individuals to start a blog. Since the idea of the bill is a complete public transparency of all lobbyism funding, it is easy to see wher

Also, the rules are far less drastic than what Winstonm said: It only applies to bloggers who
1. have at least 500 readers,
2. are getting paid for it "in order to stimulate grassroots lobbying", and
3. receive at least $25,000 per quarter for that.

I admit I can find little wrong with that. If you get paid $100,000 a year for lobbying via a blog, what's wrong with having to admit publically that you are getting paid for that? And with being treated as a paid lobbyist?

Arend

Source: http://thomas.loc.go...z?d110:s.00001: go to full text, section 220.

[mike777]

Lobbying is such a wide ranging word.

Lets say I lobby against killing or Lobby for eating soup or for internet bridge......these advocate a point of view that in the very broad sense is political or economic.

You can define almost any topic as political or economic.

I am for full disclosure in general rather than limiting speech in any form(McCain/Feingold) but even full disclosure has its limits where it imposes unreasonable restraint by the government.

Speaking of assaults on the Internet see such topics as sales taxes or the very complicated and contraversial issue of open access where it comes to internet dist and pipelines.

[cherdano]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/22/bl...roturfing_bill/

This is really disturbing to me. Winston's misinformation was actually indirectly based exactly on the kind of "astroturfing" (fake blogs etc. written by paid PR professionals that try to make it look like a grassroots compaign) by a lobbying company. So they used exactly those tactics that this bill tried to make transparent, and succeeded in stopping it with this method! In other words, lobbyism still wins over democracy

So this whole story does highlight intricate problems with American democracy (last-minute amendments to bills are often based on lobbying and may succeed when the majority of senators/members of congress didn't really have the time to even read all of what they are deciding on), but a completely different problem than all the posters here assumed...

(Disclaimer: the registers isn't exactly a reliable source, it is often opinionated and biased. But in this case, the story seems pretty consistent.)

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2007, 10:26 PM, said:

"Policy matters"....

So if you have a blog that posts bills like this and reach 500 or more, Congress wants to treat you like a professional lobbyist? How sick is that?~~

not very, if you look at arend's post... do these 3 things obtain?

1. have at least 500 readers,
2. are getting paid for it "in order to stimulate grassroots lobbying", and
3. receive at least $25,000 per quarter for that

if so, you are a lobbiest and fall under this bill.. if not, not

[Winstonm]

Quote

Also, the rules are far less drastic than what Winstonm said: It only applies to bloggers who
1. have at least 500 readers,
2. are getting paid for it "in order to stimulate grassroots lobbying", and
3. receive at least $25,000 per quarter for that.

You may be right as the legalise in these bills is difficult for me to decipher - but I got this information from section 220 of S.1. (Yes, I actually tried to read and understand the section in question before I posted - but not being an attorney may have misunderstood.)

This is what I read: "Disclosure of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying."
"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 a specific acttion with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communication by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders."

(B) Paid attempt to influence the general public or sections thereof - The term 'paid attempt to influence the general public of sections thereof' does not not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 member of the general public.

This to me infers that the term "paid efforts" applies to anyone who contacts more than 500 people. There is no stated dollar amount for "paid attempt".

The money amounts of $10,000 and $25,000 are part of the definition of "Grassroots Lobbying Firm" and are not included under "paid efforts".

As far as I could tell, there is no money amount necessary to make a "paid effort' but there is a money amount to be classified a "Grassroots Lobbying Firm", and the two do not seem to be one and the same item.

But I bow to your superior knowledge if you know differently. :)