To me, a lobbyist is someone who reaches out to politicians and office holders and tries to change what they think. If someone asks voters to contact their representatives, that’s not lobbying. When (if) the voter makes the call, that’s not lobbying either – that’s a voter expressing an opinion. This isn’t activity that should be regulated.
You can see the actual language of the bill here; click on Section 220. Check out the section about “registrants” in particular.
By the way: I wasn’t paid to make this post.
Please share widely!
david says
that the section is mostly directed at firms that are paid to generate what looks like “grassroots” support but is really astroturf. A look at who doesn’t like the section (aside from the ACLU, who seems to be confused about what it will do) tells me most of what I need to know.
<
p>
If it makes you feel better, here’s Senator Feingold’s statement explaining what the provision does and why it should stay in the bill:
<
p>
dunster says
this doesn’t qualify as “Don’t worry, it’s only bloggers that receive money. Most bloggers are unaffected.”
<
p>
Assume Abramoff gave Reed money – fine, they were doing things I don’t agree with. Turn it around. Michael Moore gives a pile of money to MoveOn. Is Michael Moore a lobbyist? Should he be requried to register with the feds? Is MoveOn a lobbyist? If so, who is MoveOn lobbying? Voters?
<
p>
I still come back to this: Why are we regulating people who are talking to voters as if they were lobbyists?
peter-porcupine says
right here –
http://www.bluemassg…
<
p>
She has a link to the text of the bill.
<
p>
The part that worries ME is the most is this –
<
p>
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.
Under this, BMG could be considred a grassroots lobby firm – especially with blogad money from candidates. And the $10,000 figure is a red herring – if you DON’T take in $10,000, you still have to file and say so!
Read the bill, and support the Bennett Amendmen to strike Sec. 220.
david says
The fact that what we do might be considered “grassroots lobbying” doesn’t mean we have to register, report, or do anything else. The definition isn’t operative. First, you have to read another definition in the bill:
<
p>
<
p>
That ain’t us. And then you go to the operative section of the bill:
<
p>
<
p>
Doesn’t apply to us, because we’re not a “grassroots lobbying firm,” we’re not “retained by a client,” and we’re not engaged in “paid efforts” to stimulate anything.
<
p>
This is about wealthy special interests who spend big $$ to get constituents to flood Congress with emails and phone calls. I have no problem with those folks having to disclose what they’re doing.
lynne says
Someone (Americablog? Kos?) today mentioned there’s rumors going around that some legislation is going to affect bloggers and activist groups, but (I think it was John actually) says it’s all bunk rumors from right wing idiots – looks like an attempt to get bloggers to help torpedo legislation they would otherwise agree with.
<
p>
Yeah, here it is.
peter-porcupine says
It’s Section 220 that I’m worried about. So check out that Bennett amendment, not deep-sixing the bill!
david says
And the consensus of most well-informed, non-Richard-Viguerie, non-James-Dobson observers is that it’s not a problem. I’m not worried.
dunster says
James Dobson, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and I all got what we wanted: the blogger-registration section was removed from US 1.