Just to follow up on yesterday’s post concerning the efforts of Czar Harry and his council of wisepersons to protect us from dangerous political speech, here’s an article from today’s Rocky Mountain News suggesting that those most likely to be hurt by the proposed legislation aren’t corporate-backed blog monsters (though they’ll suffer too—which, according to some, ain’t such a bad thing), but rather grass roots lobbying groups who will be susceptible to frivolous or politically-motivated lawsuits. From “Grass-roots lobbying groups fighting proposed oversight”:
A conservative evangelical lobbying group based in Colorado Springs is joining the Amerian Civil Liberties Union – at the liberal end of the political spectrum – in protesting a proposed federal law they say could kill their grass-roots lobbying efforts.
As of Thursday, Focus Action, an arm of Focus on the Family, had collected more than 101,000 signatures to present next week on Capitol Hill.
The Christian group has joined the ACLU, as well as other grass- roots lobbying organizations, to fight Section 220 of an ethics and accountability bill. It would force the groups to submit to new government oversight before they could reach out to the public on political issues.
“It would burden nonprofit organizations with miles of red tape,” said Amanda Banks, a spokeswoman with Focus Action.
In a protest letter to senators, ACLU legislative director Caroline Fredrickson said: “When faced with burdensome registration and reporting requirements, some of these organizations may well decide that silence is the best option.”
The measure’s backers say its purpose is to prevent so-called “Astroturf lobbying,” in which lobbyists for powerful interest groups and corporations try to fool legislators into thinking they represent groups of consumers.
—and legislators, bless their busy little hearts, are going to be too distracted with trying to impeach Bush and raise taxes to have the time to do a little research on their own, or to make up their own minds based on the merits of a proposal rather than on how many potential voters they think it land them.
Priorities, you see.
Anway,
[…] according to those potentially affected, it is the legitimate grass-roots lobbyists who would carry the burden of the new rules.
The Traditional Values Coalition, which says it represents 43,000 churches nationwide, calls the measure an assault on free speech and “possibly the most expansive intrusion ever proposed in the United States Senate.”
Section 220 would require detailed quarterly accounts of every action taken to reach the public, from published articles to conversations with reporters, “and every stamp and piece of paper accounted for,” Banks said.
With fines of $200,000 for each infraction, organizations would have to choose between spending money to reach the public “or spending it on attorneys and accountants,” she said.
“That would truly be a sad day in American government, when grass- roots organizations could no longer educate the public about what the government is doing” […]
It isn’t difficult to see how such a piece of legislation can be marshalled against groups with limited funding—either by threatening to find infractions or by claiming that infractions have indeed been found, and forcing groups with limited funds to pony up the money for legal counsel.
Charges can later be dismissed, but in the interim, groups can essentially be silenced—just long enough, the cynical among us might conclude, for their influence to be mitigated if not completely eliminated.
But don’t worry. It’s for your own good. After all, the people who are contemplating such legislation are nothing if not disinterested. Just ask Maurice Hinchey.
Because let’s face it, if you can’t trust the information-filtering judgments of a Democrat who says, publicly, that “the survival of America” is at stake because “‘neo-fascist’ and ‘neo-con’ talk-show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh” have “facilitated the ‘illegal’ war in Iraq” and are “complicit in President Bush’s repeated violations of the Constitution, such as by detaining terrorists,” then who’s left to protect us? Us?
Please. “We” just elected enough Democrats to control both Houses of Congress. If that doesn’t disqualify us as stewards of our own interests, I don’t know what else could…
First they came and tried to control our guns. Now when you try to shoot your mouth off, they try to control that too.
Those damn, damn, dirty apes!
Thank you, all you Republicans/conservatives/libertarians who refused to vote.
Now go look in the mirror.
God bless you Jeff. That was an absolutely perfect summation of the congress critters quandry. Fucking cowards.
Scott Eric Kaufman says all the black ones will mysteriously end up at the bottom of the heap.
Some of my best friends are licorice-flavored gumdrops.
Oh no, I won’t vote for a Republican who is not out there on the Mexican border shooting the wetbacks like rabbits. If Republicans can’t take a strong stand on immigration I am staying home and if that means a Democratic Party victory well it is not my fault.
And to show my commitment to this–I refuse to hire any Mexican illegal aliens. The help we have in the home is from Irish au pairs. Everyone has to do their part to keep this country white. . . um. . . I mean keep this country free of illegal aliens.
When last heard from, Buchanan was backing the isolationist Dems.
Up is down. Black is white. Starsky is Hutch.
Welcome to the new millennium (once again).
Our “educational system” has produced these monstrosities, and now they run the government. The Constitution has become a list of “suggestions”, and being re-elected is the most important issue of our time.
I used to laugh at the Minutemen. I am not there yet, but how close can we get?
I can laugh at only so much. This is not funny.
I have never been in a fight in my whole life, but if I happen to run into Babs or Harry, there could be a problem.
Ethics, indeed!
I am a pacifist and would rather run away than fight, but this is getting ridiculous. The first amendment means absolutely nothing to our elected representatives. It does mean something to me…I must be too old to understand reality.
Let’s see what happens here if I say: “f-U Harry reid and Babas Boxer. There is nothing better than having 12 year olds in control of our government. Equality of outcome! Yeah, man…
It was a Republican senator that introduced this legislation.
But don’t let that stop the faux outrage.
Jeff, where’s the trust, huh? Where’s the love, man?
So, you’re OK with this alphie?
alphie
Have no fear, we are just as capable of crucifying our own for stupid decisions as we are at pointing out the mistakes from your side of the aisle. Wish the opposite was true.
Of course. He doesn’t have 500 readers of his blog. He doesn’t even have 5….
But he does provide a Service68.
Lost Dog
It’s worse than you are suggesting. Ideally we could hope that crap like this would be stopped at the desk of the executive or failing that, certainly at the USSC. Not so much anymore.
Also, the press seems too short sighted to understand the danger of these kinds of moves, and so they aren’t screaming to get everyone’s attention.
Thank God for the numbing qualities of alcohol.
I am staying home and if that means a Democratic Party victory well it is not my fault.
So goes the reasoning of the pro-surrender Dems about what will happen to Iraq with an immediate withdrawal of baby-killer US troops.
Actually, S.1 was introduced by the Majority Leader, Sen Reid, as is typical for all rules bills.
Moreover, SA 20 by Sen. Bennett (R-UT) would rescind this section of the bill (it’s already passsed, 55-43). See Thomas for the details. Find out how your Senator voted here.
Don’t let your ignorance hit you in the backside on the way out, ‘kay?
I can assure you, Alphie, that my outrage is quite real.
Incidentally:
I think it’s section 220 that I brought up yesterday as being problematic. The Republican in question wants it removed.
Not so Czar Harry.
Oops. Kevin beat me too it.
But I will point out, for alphie’s sake, that those little orange sections of text are actually hyperlinks.
So now he, too, can get the whole story. UNLESS HARRY REID DECIDES TO STOP HIM!
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was introduced by a Republican and passed by a Republican-controlled Senate, but the doesn’t prevent it from being a blatant attack on the First Amendment.
BTW, in case you hadn’t noticed, the ACLU is also opposed to Section 220 of S.1, but don’t let that stop your faux snark, alphie.
“either by threatening to find infractions or by claiming that infractions have indeed been found, and forcing groups with limited funds to pony up the money for legal counsel. “
This is done every day by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, and was used especially under the Reno Justice Department to cut the number of licensed non-store-front gun dealers in the country down seriously. They would routinely show up and start asking for different forms, and as soon as they found one missing or miss-filed, the dealer was closed down, his inventory confiscated, and sometimes the dealer himself arrested.
Of course, all would be forgiven in time, following thousands of dollars of litigation and an eventual admision of, “Oops. Our bad.” by the ATF. With this kind of enforcement, you are guilt until you can prove your own innocence. God help you if you don’t have the resources to do so.
I think there’s a contest between the ATF and the IRS to see which can be more overzealous and unaccountable.
Well,
I doubt the outrage displayed by well known Republican “fund raiser” Richard Viguerie, who, by an amazing coincidence, both pointed out this fascist bit of legislation and on the same day started a group to fight it.
Save your money, kids…send it to North Korea if you’re desperate to be charitable…it will be better spent by Kim.
Scott
And the ACLU is also known for threat by lawsuit…
Just ask the county of LA or city of Redlands on why they removed tiny crosses from their county/city seals (which paid hommage to CA’s history)
Alphie, once again I point you and everyone else to the vote so you can be the judge as to who are the ‘Fascists’.
I’m sure, alpee, that Viguerie is chagrinned that he didn’t wait for your personal approval of what constitutes an appropriate waiting time before taking action against a Political Censorship Rule.
HOW DARE HE BE SPEEDY!!!
Kevin
My two Dem Senators (CA) both voted fascist.
How unsurprising.
Speedy indeedy.
It can’t be easy for all those Republican hacks who went from $1+ million year lobbying salaries to flipping burgers when the Democrats took over Congress this month.
Weep for them.
Huh? He sees something in pending (now passed) legislation that he believes so outrageous that he forms a group to fight it, that makes his outrage “doubtful”?
Are you that dense, or just a knee-jerk contrarian?
Or, better yet, one of those kooks that believe only nefarious conspiracy can explain anything.
God, who let alphie in here? The quality of troll around this blog has really gone down . . .
Having worked at one of these fund raising sausage factories in my idealistic youth, I can say with some degree of certainty that this has more to do with Viguerie’s plummeting post-election income than any actual concern for whatever it is we’re all outraged by today.
If you doubt me, fill in the form on Viguerie’s site and see if the first thing that arrives from his group isn’t a desperate plea for funds to fight this meance!
I went to the polls, into the voting booth and there were no Republicans on the ballot! But then, I live in Massachusetts.
I miss knowing I’m right because it was me that thought of something. If you doubt me, send me an email and I’ll send you some of my tears in a bottle.
alphie = actus?
My eyes, my eyes. Did you say we just elected a bunch of Doughnuts? The Doughnuts are Flipping Burglars? Where the hell are my glasses.
Only if somebody’s slipping crystal meth into his patchouli.
Alphie’s not even funny any more. Can we vote him off the island?
Where do I sign up to get on the list of Approved Speakers?
And to which office do talk show producers send their proposed guest lists for approval?
Enlightened, if I’m not mistaken, I believe the Hamburgler was elected as a pro-life Democrat from Illinois . . .
Are you retarded, alphie? Do you really think that lobbyists give a flying fuck what letter is at the end of the congresscritter’s name? They have their own agendas, dumbass. That’s why they’re lobbyists, because they get paid to pursue their client’s priorities. All the elections in the world don’t change that.
A politico fundraising?? Why, that would be unprecedented. It can’t be, algernon.
B-B-B-B-B-But Pablo!
Are you saying a Democrats opinion could be swayed by lobbyists monies??!!11111!?
What is so crass about alphie’s blatherings are things like this:
Do a site search, pal. See how often I stand up for free speech, be it Kid Rock’s or Holocaust deniers.
You haven’t yet a grasp of this place, so you continue to aim your barbs at cartoon conservatives.
Which is well and good—and, quite frankly, predictable. But what isn’t well and good is that you seem so blase about the potential erosion of your free speech rights.
And I bet you are one of those dolts who likes to talk about how the NSA datamining to cross-reference potential jihadist traffic in space before going to a robed ruler is “shredding the Constitution”.
Give it a rest. If you don’t feel outraged, don’t. But not everyone is a political cynic who just acts outraged at the times his party insists he should.
Shit, I sure hope so, B Moe. My Halliburton overlords are gonna be pissed if it can’t. Thank God I’ve got a meeting with Rep. William Jefferson. I think I can close this one as long as the FBI isn’t watching.
I’m a libertarian that stayed home and I don’t have any regrets at all. I don’t like this bill any than you do, but the GOP showed pretty clearly with McCain-Feingold that they don’t value free speech any more than Dems do.
-And they showed with record levels of pork that they don’t value spending restraint any more than Dems do.
-And they showed with No Child Left Behind that they don’t value controlling the expansion of the federal beaurocracy any more than Dems do.
-And they showed with Medicare Part D that they don’t care about reforming entitlement spending any more than Dems do.
-And they showed with the Schiavo circus that they don’t care about federalism any more than Dems do.
-And they showed with steel tarriffs and farm subsidies that they don’t care about free trade any more than Dems do.
-And after they lost power and re-elected essentially the same pack of lousy bastards to their congressional leadership posts they showed they don’t care about listening to their base or accountability any more than Dems do.
If you want to blame people like me for this Dem congress go ahead, but it’s a bit like blaming Detroit Lions fans for poor ticket sales.
You should be blaming the GOP for consistently showing libetarians and limited-government conservatives that the party is no longer interested in offering us anything but a good rogering in exchange for our votes.
I guess I don’t see how anyone being paid $25,000 or more to try to influence the government being required to disclose who paid ‘em is an attempt to stifle “free speech.”
It’s not just Congress or the administration or the courts who get this info, but the public, too.
oh hey, we can add Rep. Steve Cohen to the list of supporters. I didn’t want to go back to the other post….. uh, just in case anyone else is interested.*cough*heet*cough* he was on Hannity and Colmes tonight to argue about it.
Oh, Jesus, Alphie… name three.
Here’s some, GMG:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/
Do you even know what a fucking lobbyist is?
Well, B Moe,
Right now, lobbying is defined as:
The term “lobbying activities†means lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such contacts, including preparation and planning activities, research and other background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination with the lobbying activities of others.
And if the bill in question is passed as written, this sentence will be added to the above definition of lobbying:
Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.
I am not talking about some convaluted bullshit legal definition you dug up who knows where, why is lobbying called lobbying?
What you linked to was an article about Exxon cutting ties to a public relations firm, a company that does tv ads and such to educate and influence the public, not government officials.
Reid is not trying to cut off the funds into his pocket, he is trying to cut off information to the voters. Pity you are too stupid to realize it.
B Moe,
I dug up that “BS legal definition” from the section of the United States Code that will be modified by the bill Jeff mentioned in his OP.
http://tinyurl.com/288vs3
Look at paragraph (7) if you want to see what everyone else has been discussing here the past few days.
Using your link, lets look at paragraph (8):
and, what is this exception here in part (B):
What the Democrats are doing has nothing to do with lobbying by any sane definition of the term.
Right. It’s about electioneering, not lobbying.