Harry Reid and the “progressive” Democrats—protecting the American public from itself, one bit of proposed legislation at a time.
From David Hardy:
S.1 has been introduced in the Senate as “lobbying reform”—which in this case means “First Amendment infringements.” An amendment has been attached, which requires registration of bloggers with more than 500 readers, and who comment on policy issues. Violation would be a criminal offense.
[…] As the bill is reported, it appears to cover any “paid” grassroots lobbying, that reaches more than 500 people. But a blogger who receives contributions might be classed as a “paid” grassroots type. It looks like Congress wants to keep an eye on annoying people like Porkbusters. It may be significant that S.1 was introduced by Harry Reid, one of the Kings of Pork.
Reached for comment, Presidential hopeful John McCain (“Maverick”-AZ) noted that, while he was in no way responsible for this legislation (other than by opening the door to it with his execrable, pandering, free speech “reform” measures), it remains true that “for free speech to stay free, it really should be heavily regulated and its purveyors caught, tagged, and released. Especially until such time as we are able to have a word with them concerning their unwillingness to be caught, tagged, and released.
“But look on the bright side—having to pay means you’ve got yourself one heck of an audience! So, you know—glass half full, people! And congrats!”
(h/t IP)
****
update: BECAUSE OF THE LIVING CONSTITUTION!
****
ungrateful ex-wife of update: Christopher Taylor looks more closely at the proposed legislation and notes:
[…] it appears that the only blogs that would be impacted would be ones that take money to blog on a topic. For example when in the election year various blogs were essentially hired by some politicians to advertise for them in the guise of “covering their campaign.â€Â
The requirements are:
-500 readers
-makes or expects to make $25k a quarter
-hired or paid to influence policy or electionsSo no, not really just any blogs. Only the ones that are shills for a politician or cause, which makes sense.
I’m not sure I agree with Christopher’s conclusion that promoting a cause that you happen to agree with is necessarily “shilling”—even if you are taking money from other proponents of that cause (say you support the flat tax and always have, and Steve Forbes decides he’ll throw you a few hundred K to support it in haiku form. So long as you disclose the contribution, where’s the “shilling”?)—but it’s likely that very few blogs are making $25K a quarter, so this is not really going to be a widespread concern.
Still, it’s a free speech concern. People should be able to promote whomever they wish for whatever reasons they wish. This still strikes me as a way to legislate against the presumed stupidity of the American electorate.
Of course, I could be wrong—and probably am. Otherwise I’d be making $25K or more a quarter, right?
I dare ‘em. It’s been a good long while since we’ve had a decent revolt in this country and we’re definitely due for one. While we’re at it though, can we do something about the IRS too?
We don’t need no stinking badges.
Best Regards,
Harry McCain Reid
Count de Monet: It is said that the people are revolting.
John McReid: You said it! They stink on ice!
Why should there be a revolt? The MSM will love it and the lefty blogs will come on board once the ‘Soros money doesn’t count clause’ is added.
There will be a lot of bitching and moaning and court cases will ensue, but the ACLU will not be in the forefront of the battle so the media will be free to portray the defenders of free speech as Big Nasty Globalising Corporations out to browbeat the poor dumb American voters.
Oh I’m sure Bush will veto it, (like he did with McCain-Feingold), or if he doesn’t then I’m sure the Supremes will throw it out, (like they did with McCain-Feingold), but these guys really believe they’ll get away with it and, sadly, they’re probably right.
Because of the FAIRNESS!
Upon closer study of the bill, it appears that the only blogs that would be impacted would be ones that take money to blog on a topic. For example when in the election year various blogs were essentially hired by some politicians to advertise for them in the guise of “covering their campaign.”
The requirements are:
-500 readers
-makes or expects to make $25k a quarter
-hired or paid to influence policy or elections
So no, not really just any blogs. Only the ones that are shills for a politician or cause, which makes sense.
I suppose as long as they’re registering, they might as well provide some additional information; Political Affiliation or leanings, Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation, that kind of thing.
Purely for research purposes, of course.
500 readers? Heh, I’ll never have that!
And $25k a quarter? Make that a quarter every 25k years.
Which, in all honesty, makes them The Press–and we all know that the 1st Ammendment is mute on that issue.
How does Big Brother find out if you make $25k a quarter… via blogging?
Hmmm.
What if it’s a group blog where each individual blogger expects to make $24.5k per quarter?
No filee paperee?
Or will they realize that the limitations are really just self-imposed and they could get more fun-dollars by eliminating the restriction on the registration and thus resulting in unrestricted registration of those nasty pesky pain in the ass bloggers.
When the fuck did this shit stop being unconstitutional???
…
Oh yeah. Mc-Fucking-Cain. That’s right.
Hey, if I can make $25k a quarter kissing ass and all it cost me is a little governmental paper then make that crap voluntary and sign us up. You don’t need a law for that. It seems to me that i’ll register to read the damn Dallas Morning News, I’ll register to get paid.
/soul of a political whore, over here
First they came for the bloggers who have 500 readers and make money on their blogs or have been hired to influence policy, but because I wasn’t one of those, I catblogged instead.
It also affects grassroots lobbying groups such as DownsizeDC, or Gun Owners of America, Inc., or American Family Association. If you’re a big lobbying organization, like AARP or any George Soros-funded atrocity, you can just hire another $70,000/year lackey to conform. If you’re just some folks who work with little money to make a difference, you’ll be unduly punished because Congress can’t keep lobbyists’ money out of their pockets.
Where would someone like Kos fit in here? His money making and distributing, and his candidate selection seems a bit mysterious to me. But then, how would the gov’t find out what’s going on behind the curtain?
See. I knew there was a reason I never started a blog.
I’m wondering, though. If you’re one of these so-called “bloggers” and you’re cracking the ole’ 25 geezel a quarter mark, what’s the big deal about filling out a coupla forms and getting a numbered tattoo on your arm?
I wanna shill for $100k a year!
I’m thinking I need a new banner for my blog-“Will Register For $25k+/Year! Act Now!”
Hell, I’ll even register twice.
I think the founding fathers said it best:
“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…..unless the bastards are shilling for a politician or a cause.”
Which, you know, makes sense, in a kinda nonsensical way.
Remember that the federal income tax started off at 3% on incomes over $100,000 (in current dollars – or something like that.) It only affected the very rich, and this is how the Constitutional amendment authorizing it was sold to the public.
But once the structure was in place, changing the numbers became just a legislative detail.
Today it’s 500 readers and $25K/quarter. But once the structure is there, those numbers could easily change to 50 readers and $250/year. It would be too late to argue that the whole law is a terrible infringement.
The problem with lobbyist reform is that to some degree, it has to eventually interfere with freedom of speech. That’s what laws against libel and slander do as well – we draw a line where we’re willing to limit the free expression of some rights based on the damage they do to society.
All laws are this kind of limitation on expression of rights, we just have to ask “is this area a proper limitation or not,” not presume any limitation is wrong or unconstitutional.
Come on guys, this only affects the rich.
I mean, who among us pulls in a million a year? Don’t worry, be happy!
Or, in other words, what wrangler said…
Hey Jeff, would you be so kind as to sew this little yellow star on your clothes? No, really, it means nothing. It just helps us to, you know, keep track of things.
So, it’s your position that we should have absolutely not restrictions of any kind on any expression whatsoever? No libel laws, no fraud, no “cry fire in a theater” laws at all?
Obviously there are limits on all freedoms, this does not transform us into a fascist society, please don’t be absurd.
Strawman.
There are limits to expression everywhere, some good, some bad. Unfortunately, everytime we lose a freedom, it is terribly difficult to get it back. I see absolutely no reason to limit the free speech of private bloggers.
Uh Tom, I’ll give you a reason.
Your free speech rights do not give you the right to post my social security number online on your blog. For whatever reason.
Your free speech rights do not give you the right to post the position of sensitive military locations that could get people killed.
Your free speech does not give you the right to post …….shall I go on?
Thank you for agreeing that it is not an instant step into fascism for blogs that make $100k a year and are being paid to influence policy and elections to have to register as a lobbyist.
Yes Tman, you are not allowed to break the law on your blog. Thanks for clearing that up.
However, this law wants to regulate speech that is in no way criminal. For what reason?
Tom,
That’s where you can thank Presidential hopeful John McCain (“Maverick”-AZ), and his buddy Presidentially hopeless Senator Russ Feingold (D-FairyTale Gumdrop Land).
Commentary for public consumption is not lobbying.
Attempt #3
Under McCain-Feingold, it is, Pablo. It is considered free political advertising, aka an “in-kind contritbution.
Which is an unconstitutional law in and of itself…
Slippery slope….
Camel’s nose in the tent….
Hand up the sweater….
etc, etc.
No, it’s what we call an “incremental step” – much like that extra tenth of a degree of heat on that frog that is slowly boiling to death.
/what wrangler said, Part the Second
TW: the end91 doesn’t justify the means
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”—Thomas Jefferson
Part the second?!
What the fuck is that? ;P
That would be electioneering, Spiny, not lobbying. Lobbying is a persuasive effort directed at the legislature, not the people. The term appropriately does not appear in the legislation.
Which is nice, because now there’s something appropriate about it that we can point to. Lemons to lemonade, baby!
One thing to be careful of here, is that 25K may not have to be in the form of actual dollars. Remember that radio talk show host on the west coast (Seattle I think), that was accused of breaking campaign finance laws because he spoke on the radio about a certain topic too close to an election?
In that case, his speech alone was deemed to have monetary value because the station also sold advertising. Therefore, if you’re a blogger who accepts ads for a certain amount, even if you never take ads that equal 25K in a quarter… if you blog enough on a topic, a judge who enjoys making living law may conclude that your speech was still worth that much.
Just a thought.
And?
One bad law does not excuse another. If anything, it argues against it.
The more I think about this, the more I wonder if it is not a shot by the Democrat establishment across the bow of Firedoglake and Kos? Leiberman/Lamont and Kos’ saber rattling about a coup may be drawing some return fire.
Dkos would be directly in the line of fire of such legislation. That little bug eyed fucker is hauling in some serious moonbat cash. Plus, he just had that appearance on American Idol, so his profile is clearly on the rise.
It’s lonely at the top, and everyone wants to take you down.
I DO NOT LOOK LIKE A MONKEY!
A point missed by some commenters is that Liable and Slander is generally a TORT, not a criminal offense.
Sure, you should be able to liable someone, and I believe you are…however, they are free to sue the living bejeebers out of you for it. Making this a criminal issue is unconstitutional.
Tomb,
I’m saying both laws suck ass.
McCain and Feingold shouldn’t be allowed near any campaign/election financing legislation ever again. Hell, they shold be forced to leave the room once a discussion on the topic begins.
I say let them spend whatever they want, they just have to disclose the sources of the funding.
Keep in mind, the portion involving grass roots lobbyists (the bit people are saying is about blogs) only required people to register, it didn’t somehow tell them to shut up. Yes, it’s creepy and feels like 1984, but this isn’t a case of being silenced.
The main reasons that any speech at all can be regulated – libel/slander, shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, etc. – is because of the clearly defined damages or risk of damage to others. But when groups of people get together to effect political changes, they are still allowed to do their best, but only as long as they don’t actually try to spread the word, because that would be “shilling” for a cause.
They’d also better not be very effective, because if they manage to raise $25K or get 501+ people to agree with them, their speech is suddenly subject to being regulated by the powers-that-be.
But, hey! At least it’s creepy and feels like 1984…
“Here, fill out these forms in triplicate, in blue ink. If you make a mistake, just stop and a clerk will be back through here in an hour or two and you can ask for a new set of forms.”