 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Trunk Show | Main | Help Needed » January 17, 2007Criminalizing Free SpeechThe Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate is moving to restrict your free speech rights in a big, big way. Section 220 of Senate Bill 1, the lobbying reform bill legislation currently before the U.S. 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 just as big-time lobbyists do. Section 220 would require reporting of "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying," - and would define "'paid" merely as making communications to 500 or more people. That's it. And last week the Senate passed an amendment to the lobbying reform bill to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone "knowingly and willingly fails to file or report." So, a blogger with 500 readers who criticizes Congress or urges some sort of policy action would be subject to the law's reporting requirements. In effect, critics of Congress would have to register with Congress. This blog has more than 500 readers. In fact, it is read by around 25,000 different people every month, though not every day. But I will never register with or file a "lobbying" report to Congress. Never. Because BillHobbs.com is not a lobbying effort, it is a independent project in journalism, protected by the First Amendment, which says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Section 220 threatens to abridge my - and your freedom of speech and of the press (ink or digital), and it even threatens my - and your - First Amendment right to the free exercise of your religious faith. That's because Section 220 isn't limited to bloggers and others who wish to write and speak out about their government. Section 220 also represents a wholesale attack on the free exercise of religion, as any pastor, rabbi, imam or guru who speaks about a public policy issue to an audience of 500 or more people would have to register as a lobbyist and file quarterly reports. A pastor who writes an op-ed urging the U.S. to pull its troops out of Iraq, or urging Congress to fund or not fund stem-cell research, for example, would be communicating to more than 500 people. They, too, would be subject to the onerous registration and reporting requirements of Section 220 =- or risk the criminal penalties. it is not just an assault on the First Amendment rights of religious leaders - it is an assault on the First Amendment rights of all Americans. If you emailed 500 people and urged them to "call their congressman" to support or oppose some bill, and you didn't register as a lobbyist and file a quarterly report, you would be at risk of a year in prison. All brought to you courtesy of the Democratic-controlled Senate. Posted in Blogging
Comments
Sounds like the legislature is looking for a means to attack pesky critics. Posted by: Nicole Sauce at January 17, 2007 5:14 PMA dangerous thing. Posted by: Donna Locke at January 17, 2007 9:35 PM[insert snide English/john kerry accent] Surely you cahhhnt be serious? Democrats would never want to infringe on our civil rights.... Posted by: Whitehorse at January 17, 2007 10:26 PMThe Progressives (read Democrats) seek to correct the problems of neocorporatism, which they created by legislating special privileges or exemptions for interest groups and establishing bureaucracies within government to cater to them, by destroying free speech for Americans at the grassroots? How European? Posted by: Isegoria at January 18, 2007 7:12 AMIt's a lie, Bill. The claim is false, phony, bogus, more here. If this were true do you think for one minute that liberal blogs would let it by? Has your projection and assumption of ill will on the part of "the other" left you that dim? Sorry about the namecalling, but when you call all liberals "Marxists" it's hard to resist. Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at January 18, 2007 9:30 AMDana- I didn't call all liberals "marxists," only the ones in memphis proposing all sorts of government intervention in and increased control of the media. As for Section 220 of Senate bill 1, it DOES do what I said it does. You can read the text of Section 22o here. A blogger who communicates to more than 500 people urging them to lobby congress (grassroots lobbying) and who is "paid" to do so must register as a lobbyist. Of course, bloggers with tip jars are paid, so they'd have to register. Couple Section 220 with the libs' desire to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in order to squelch conservative talk radio and you have a two-pronged attack aimed at silence critics of big government and liberals. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 18, 2007 11:34 AMModern Marxists are partial to neocorporatism, just like Progressives. Read, for example, Juergen Habermas'"The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere" (German 1962, English 1989) and "Legitimation Crisis" (German 1973, English 1975. Posted by: Isegoria at January 18, 2007 4:43 PMSection 220 would require reporting of "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying," - and would define "'paid" merely as making communications to 500 or more people. That's it. Bill failed all the basic reading comprehension tests. From the bill: (1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'; and (2) by adding at the end of the following: `(17) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same. `(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. `(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- 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. Section 220 was aimed at people being paid to encourage "grassroots" lobbying. As written, it didn't define pay, so a blogger, like me, who gets PayPal donations and accepts money from advertisers and money from content syndicators, is "paid." And I routinely write things intended to spark my more than 500 readers to political action, including grassroots lobbying of Congress. There was the possibility under Section 220 - which, thankfully, was defeated - that the enforces of it if it became law would construe it to require at least some bloggers to register. More likely, it would have been used by the Left to go after conservative Christian pastors who discuss political issues with their congregation, after all they are "paid" and often have more than 500 people in their audience. And if we who raised alarms about Section 220 were over-worried, well, too much vigilance against those who seek to regulate (and therefore limit) speech and regulate (and therefore limit) political activism is better than too little. There are those who wish to use government power to silence or restrict speech. A few hundred of them gathered in Memphis last week. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 18, 2007 10:16 PMBill, I think unless you take in more than $20K/year from one source, you're under the reporting limit, if I read that right. That's not the way I read it. I read it that if the company giving money to the blogger spent at least that much overall it would have to register and report. So if a political advocacy consulting firm created a multi-faceted marketing/grassroots effort and part of it included giving a little money to a blogger via, say, their tip jar, the reporting requirements are still triggered. I could be wrong. Something else to consider: Federal election finance law recognizes "in-kind contributions of time, materials, supplies, etc., as having cash value. If the $25,000 threshold applies to the blogger, well, at a reasonable rate of $100 per hour, a blogger who spent just 250 hours advocating on their blog for a certain policy position might trigger the reporting requirement. In addition, if a blogger's blog had a large readership, say in the tens of thousands, his time could be valued differently, using some sort of cost-per-thousand-impressions metric from advertising. Clearly a blog post read by 10 readers is worth less as an in-kind expenditure than the same blog post read by 10,000 readers. The danger in Section 220 wasn't just the law itself, but what the Federal Election Commission would do with it to expand regulations and write new rules. What I'm not wrong about is that a minister with a large congregation would have to register with Congress as a lobbyist if he urged his flock to call Congress regarding stem cell research, gay marriage or any other issue. Supporters of Section 220 say it is necessary to expose anonymous backers of so-called "astroturf" grassroots lobbying campaigns. But why do such anonymous campaigns happen? Could it be that the people behind them sometimes fear that if they go public they'll be targeted for retribution by ... well, by politicians like those who think Section 220 was a good idea? Ya think? Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 18, 2007 11:26 PMBill: `(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.'. If you're getting $25K/quarter from this blog, I think you're probably more in danger of an IRS audit than the FEC up your heinie because you're failing to disclose. JP, you missed a key phrase: `(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'. I would not have to receive $25,000 in income per quarter to trigger the reporting requirement - if my efforts here could be construed as spending that much to encourage grassroots lobbying. Given existing laws and regs regarding "in-kind" contributions it is simply not a stretch to see some clever bureaucrat or interest group alleging that bloggers' hard work amounts to "spending" via an in-kind contribution of time and effort, the amount necessary to trigger the reporting requirement - especially if the blogger is a professional who in their regular job makes a high per-hour salary. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 19, 2007 8:05 AMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
