Slashdot Log In
Bill to Treat Bloggers as Lobbyists Defeated
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri Jan 19, 2007 01:20 AM
from the common-sense-prevails dept.
from the common-sense-prevails dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Political Bloggers May Be Forced to Register 658 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I feel a great distubance (Score:5, Insightful)
(Actually, they were silenced when their heads exploded like Dantooine when they found out that it was Republicans who blocked the bill.)
Re:I feel a great distubance (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I feel a great distubance (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I feel a great distubance (Score:5, Funny)
Dammit! You're right. "Dantooine is too remote to make an effective demonstration. But don't worry. We will deal with your Rebel friends soon enough." Damn Tarkin!
Sorry to make you cough up your mod point, but "What's in a name? That which we call a Alderan by another name would explode as sweet"
Parent
Re:I feel a great distubance (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I feel a great distubance-Well Duh!! (Score:5, Insightful)
As a citizen, I'd like that astroturfing labeled as such
As a person with a brain, I'm offended by the suggestion that I can't just evaluate speech on the merits. And as a lover of liberty, I'm extremely offended by the suggestion that liberty be infringed in this way.
Parent
Not typical democrat behavior? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not typical democrat behavior? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Not typical democrat behavior? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Consider it a little education. Your assumption that Republicans are somehow more idiotic and stifling than Democrats was wrong in the first place. If anything, Democrats are the folks who want the governmen
Re:Not typical democrat behavior? (Score:5, Interesting)
The actual grass-roots bloggers (and whatever their criticism of whoever they wanted to criticize) were never in jeopardy. But the Republicans and some Democrats made sure that astroturfers aren't in jeopardy either. Most of the Democrats were on the ethical side on this one. Sadly, they couldn't get a majority today.
Ross (registered Republican, but not very proud of that association right now)
Parent
Re:Not typical democrat behavior? (Score:5, Informative)
Close, it's $25,000 per quarter, which comes-out to $100,000 per year. Even cheap astroturfing would be allowed.
Parent
Re:Not typical democrat behavior? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, because K Street lobbying has certainly been "shut down" by registration. You also think that "a majority" of Democratic critics are getting paid +$25,000/quarter? Where do I sign up?
Parent
Re:are you that naive? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers (Score:5, Informative)
(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.'.
Doesn't sound like treating bloggers as lobbyists, it sounds like treating lobbyists posing as bloggers as lobbyists.
Parent
Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly, here's an explanation written by Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at UCLA:
http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/2007/01/blogger_Parent
Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No, it was about stopping bloggers (Score:5, Informative)
And I don't think it was dems not wanting competition. MoveOn.org is equal to anything the right has going in this area, and I can promise you the Dems sure don't want it to have to fall under K street kinda rules.
Ah, but you are a troll posting anonymously...
Parent
Goes to show... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Second Amendment guarantees the First.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's just consider a simple scenario, a very simple scenario that doesn't deal with many of the issues facing this problem. You are a voter who has decided to vote based on the opinions of 10 random people. You believe that this is a good representation of the public and want to vote the way the public does. If there are no lobbyists, then your vote will be
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
1. We have important laws against lying about someone and presenting it as factual information. I cannot start a blog about bmajik or run commercials about you in which I call you a child molester, unless of course this is true. If you are a candidate for office, I still cannot create a blog or run commercials about you in which I call you a child molester, unless it is true. The Supreme Court has ruled that such things do not count as free speech, unless reasonable people believe it to be a parody.
2. We have serious problems with freedom of speech when corporations monopolize the process of distributing information. If enough corporations choose to unfairly favor one candidate or political viewpoint to the exclusion of other political viewpoints, then the freedom of speech of citizens is actually reduced in favor of the bias of the majority corporate viewpoint, which is in the hands of a select few individuals. This problem is present because the average citizen is financially unable to start a television station or cable news network, even if strongly motivated to do so. (There are also a limited number of broadcast slots available, and a limited number of cable lines which can be run in any one area without excessive disruption of life.) Thus, laws which ensure the fairness of the limited number of major gateways for political speech can actually increase freedom of speech. We may hope that the internet may eliminate this problem in the future, but for now it has only reduced it.
Parent
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Because there will always be de facto limits on speech whether or not there are de jure limits.
For example, no country at war is going to allow people to publish information about troop deployments. In such a situation it is important to define reasonable de jure limitations on speech, because in the heat of battle government will act to restrict speech, whether it is legally empowered to do so or not. Having reasonable limitations thought out in advance and enacted into law acts constrains those actions.
Another example is obscenity. The regulations on obscenity do not really prevent anybody who wants obscene materials from getting them. What they do is tell people who are up in arms about obscenity to go home: anybody who is receiving obscene materials is an adult or near adult seeking them out. The restriction on obscene material are a burden on producers and consumers, but on balance they ensure that such materials remain available.
These restrictions are like liberatarian antibodies. The immunize the body politic against severe censorship.
Parent
Whoah, that's one hella tendentious blurb. (Score:5, Informative)
Where the submission writeup says "previously reported by Slashdot," it should say "previously misreported by Slashdot." And presupposing that the way Slashdot "reported" it is right, as it happens, is a major piece of spin in this context. Because it's used to set up the rest of the blurb as an insinuation that Democrats were endorsing a bill that restricts freedom of political speech for bloggers (when in fact it's a bill that restricts commercial speech by people paid specifically to pretend they are unpaid advocates.)
First Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
What's so frickin' hard about this? Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. No law means no law.
Talk Radio (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether or not you agree with the Rush and Hannitty's of the world, considering them under this bill is still a first amendment violation.
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it really funny that
Parent
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want (Score:5, Informative)
certain political bloggers who make or spend $25,000 per quarter and who encourage readers to contact their elected representatives would be forced to register as lobbyists.
A blogger who gets money from coroporations, parties, or organizations to blog for them is a lobbyist and an astroturfer. This doesn't cover Billy Blogger who talks about the local sports team, or even unsponsored political blogs. It isn't a way to surpress dissent, any more than requiring the same of lobbyists is. "But it's on the Internet" does not change the fact that politically active bloggers with $100,000 salaries or budgets are lobbyists and should be treated like the normal K Street type.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps you should actually read the bill [loc.gov]*. Note that the part labelled "definitions", a "grassroots lobbying firm" is defined as someone who "is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period."
The "500 person" rule you're concerned about describes the action of influencing, not the influencer. Specifically: "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."
To be affected, you must be all three of these:
So if you're a regular blogger, you likely are safe.
*=if that doesn't work, search for S.1 on thomas.loc.gov
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is not specifically defined in the bill; however, it is specifically defined that the bill does not affect blogs with less than 500 readers. This means you simply have to be a blog with 500 or more readers. Contrary to your little list, there is no minimum defined payment amount in the bill.
You also conveniently left out that large lobby groups who don't rely on public communication are exempted! T
Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want (Score:5, Informative)
No. It's defined in Section 220 as "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.". It's in Definitions 18-A, which is right at the top of Section 220.
The payment part is in the definition of a grassroots lobbying firm, which is also in the Definitions section (right below the previous definition).
The LOC links, by the way, only seem to work for 5 minutes.
Parent
Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want (Score:4, Informative)
It's about fundraising bloggers and the astroturf types that have automatic email widgets on their blogs that generate automatic emails to legislators, even offering "sample wording".
Those are lobbyists, pure and simple.
Parent
Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want (Score:5, Insightful)
(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.
Parent
Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say I run a popular website to stimulate a grass-roots election effort (thus 19 applies). The site gets millions of hits before an election, and my hosting is expensive (I never expected that kind of bandwidth usage!), so I have to pay $25k (this meets part B). I'm running out of money, and politician Bill McGreedy pays me $1 to "keep up the good work" (this meets part A). Oops. Now, this might get shot down at trial if the judge is a nice guy, since the case doesn't match the true intent of the law. However, you can bet your ass I'll need a good lawyer, and will have to go through a trial. Given the speed of the legal system, it won't be resolved until after the election, either. I think another poster had a more likely form of misuse however, which is that the bill can be used to assert hidden payment of bloggers and thus launch an investigation of them. That will either shut the blogger up or slow them down.
We don't need this law to "protect" us; We only need to tell people that random bloggers, just like people you meet on the street, might be lying. Don't trust random people you don't know -- It's that simple. A lying blog can always be countered with another blog which digs up the truth, and that is the appropriate way to respond.
Finally, I don't see the difference between one blogger paid 50k per quarter and 10 bloggers paid $5k per quarter. The latter is a yet more sinister approximation of a "grass-roots" effort, and would be completely legal under this (now defunct) part of the law.
So to recap, this law can be used for nuisance attacks, is based on the fundamentally bad assumption that you should be able to trust random people on the internet, and has a large loophole for exactly the type of shillery it is supposed to stop. Well intentioned as it may have been, I say good riddance.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This was a "Paid fake bloggers need to register as corporate shills" bill.
This was a GOOD bill, guys. You can tell because the Republicans voted AGAINST it.
Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't link to a propaganda piece by a professional conservative lobbyist [wikipedia.org] 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.
Parent
Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans... (Score:5, Funny)
That's head-spinningly ironic, given liberals' tendency to explain their position at length, and conservatives' tendency to use ad hominem in place of debate, and make their srguments up out of thin air. See your post that I am replying to as an example of such non-factual argument.
Parent