Congress cracks down on critics.
The Ethics and Lobby reform bill has an amendment that could potentially force bloggers and other forms of grassroots communication to register as a lobbyist to speak.
"In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but isn't, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress. "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 the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself. "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.
Ann suggested I look to the ACLU about this, but they haven't written much yet. Does anybody know anything more about this?
And who the hell is getting paid? Congress must just be trying to give me a big lobbying job, not cracking down on my right to free speech.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Congress cracks down on critics..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/4632
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
as much as i appreciate the way that congress has been (quickly) chipping away at our civil liberties... what the fuck?
Can some one please supply more information on this! I did read the link to the grass roots page and also the one link on that page, but I really want more info. Thanks!
Perhaps you should have signed onto aim before you posted :) It's already been stripped
yeah, but most dems voted against it. I know two Senators who will be getting letters from me...
Reading through the text of 220 as it stands now, it appears that you have to be paid by someone to blog on their behalf to be considered "paid" under this legislation. But, if you blog because you like blogging, and Google Ads decides that, since you're a feminist site, ads for Planned Parenthood would be good for your site, does that end up counting as being "paid" by PPI to blog about feminist issues?
I read the section of the bill in question, and the press release got it wrong.
"Paid" is not defined as communicating to 500 or more members. "Paid" means paid. The section following the portion defining "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" adds the requirement that the activity be communicated to at least 500 persons, and that if it isn't communicated to at least 500 persons, it falls outside the scope of the bill.
Thus, the 500-person number is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.
No worries, it's been defeated.
""Paid" is not defined as communicating to 500 or more members. "Paid" means paid. The section following the portion defining "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" adds the requirement that the activity be communicated to at least 500 persons, and that if it isn't communicated to at least 500 persons, it falls outside the scope of the bill."
See, this, to me, sounds like a way to stop astroturfing and reveal when bloggers are being paid to present opinions to their audiences. Is there any standard for disclosure of interest for bloggers right now? If not, then this appears to be trying to set one.
I'm not sure though. It sounds like it could be a good idea, if the above-quoted paragraph is an accurate interpretation (and if they don't count Google Ads, etc. content).
The Rebuplicans defeated this....
"all 43 votes in favor of keeping the registration provision were by Democrats"
So the ammendnment came from a Republican, and then all the Republicans voted to remove it and the majority of Democrats voted to keep it attached. What's going on there?
Easy: the split in the Republican party between a very small (albeit vocal) group of authoritarians, and a larger group of small-government, pro-Bill of Rights libertarians/conservatives.
The bill is clearly unconstitutional. "Prior restraint" is only allowed in a handful of situations, and, considering that national security isn't always one of them, it would be hard to imagine that this would be allowed. The Court is very protective of political speech, as that is the core of the protected First Amendment speech.
I think that the 500 person requirement is an attempt to bring it under federal jurisdiction (Congress being of limited, enumerated powers). Sarbanes-Oxley is brought under federal jurisdiction by a trigger requirement of 300 public shareholders; at that point, it is presumed to be a part of interstate commerce.
So then what are the Democrats that voted for a Republican sponsored, unconstitutional ammendment? That's the part I don't get. On party lines they should have been against this, and on principle they should have been against this, yet most of them voted for it.
I had emailed the "contact" link about this story and how it was voted down:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00017
Maybe it's not just men that don't listen.
This was clearly a bill against astroturfing. It might have even been a good idea. Just the fact that most dems voted to keep the provision says something.
As a general proposition, the 1930s through the end of the '70s featured a federal government that was sympathetic to Democrat/liberal causes. Since Reagan and the '94 takeover of Congress, which is relatively recent, the federal government has flipped.
Because, for years, the feds were in the hands of Dems/liberals and the states (esp. in the South) were not, it was politically expedient for Dems to vote for anything that expanded the role of the federal government, even if it was not, on policy grounds, the best thing for their party - it gave them power, nevertheless. I think this is an echo of that, which is slowly fading as a result of the past 25 years of Republican/moderate Dem presidents and 12 years (until now) of Republican Congressional leadership.
My two cents.
I hate to say this, but the Democratic Party has always been a fair weather friend on civil liberties issues. We should be happy about the Democratic majority, but we'd be fools to trust it.
Cheers,
TH
damn, I almost had a heart attack when I read that. 30 minutes til the weekend too, would have sucked.
though i'm not sure this law is the way to do it, i would actually like to know which blogs are genuinely grassroots and which ones are funded by giant right-wing "think" tanks.
i think 500 readers is too few, and i think the amount of money should be significant. bloggers who get $25 donations from fans should be exempt. but bloggers who take $1000 from exxonmobil? i'd like to know who those people are.
Tom Head said:
"I hate to say this, but the Democratic Party has always been a fair weather friend on civil liberties issues. We should be happy about the Democratic majority, but we'd be fools to trust it."
I think of democrats as Republican lite.
1. The right to speak anonymously is part and parcel of First Amendment free speech rights. What really gets me about this new idea of "registering" with Congress is that it's nothing but big government and borderline mind control. No matter which side you are on, the other side can take control of Congress and start making your life difficult.
2. Tom Head - I've seen a lot of Democrats who will sacrifice one civil liberty to try to enforce another - ex. sacrificing free speech and association to try to enforce the XIV Amendment. Hence the "fair weather friend." Good intentions, but, IMHO, bad methods.