Christian groups are all in a snit about sec. 220 of S. 1 (the “ethics reform” bill). I got an e-mail from Mass. Family Institute asking me to call Kennedy and Kerry to support the Bennett Amendment that would remove Sec. 220.
From MFI:
Section 220 greatly increases the administrative and compliance costs of grassroots lobbying to non-profit groups and ministries such as Massachusetts Family Institute, Focus on the Family, and Family Research Council.
Is this something to worry about? Are only Christian groups affected, as they seem to think? I can’t make heads or tails of the actual text of the bill, so I toss it up here for dissection.
Please share widely!
Kira – I read Sec. 220, and what struck me is that any effort to influence the opinion of more than 500 people (!) is covered. This ISN’T just ‘religion’ based – it would apply to PIRG, Audubon, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Womens Int. League for Peace and Freedom, etc. ANY citizen activist group.
<
p>
I LIKE most of the bill. It clamps down on air travel, gifts, lobbying, makes registered lobbyists file quarterly instead of semi-annually, etc. These are all good reforms, directed at transparency.
<
p>
Sec. 220 is an attempt – ndeed, perhaps a first attempt – to regulate and require dislosure from citizen and activist groups, whateer stripe they may be. I ask you, Kira – you write a blog, get 2,000 hits, and take money for ads from politial groups. BMG could be affected, if they commented on Federal matters, and Federal candidates run ads on the site!
<
p>
In a way, what’s keen is that Federal authorites are so worried about grassroots that they feel the need to try to regulate and control us!
<
p>
This was a quick first skim of the bill, and I’ll read it more ever the weekend, but to answer your implicit question – no, it isn’t going to hit just big red meainies, it will hit purehearted blues as well.
The section is titled “Disclosure of Paid Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying” and it would not affect the groups PP mentions or actual grassroots Christian groups…it says right in sec 220(a)(1) …
Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.';...it's not about red or blue, it's about greenbacks. It's about "grassroots lobbying" on behalf of a <i>paying client</i>, as is clear from the following definition:<p>(A) IN GENERAL- The term<blockquote>(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-<p>
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.<p> (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.….
It’s not about grassroots lobbying, but about “grassroots lobbying” for hire. My question is, who is sponsoring these groups that they are so afraid? Are they grassroots, or are they astroturf?
“Lobbyists” are people who work to persuade politicians directly. Blogging is about persuading voters. Someone who talks to voters is not a lobbyist.
<
p>
I can see why pay v. free matters when contacting a politician.
<
p>
But when you’re talking to a voter, it just isn’t lobbying, whether you are paid or not.