Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

US Senate Bill 1: Registering Bloggers

By

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!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. 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>

    Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

    On Grassroots Lobbying Amendment

    January 17, 2007

    As Prepared for Delivery from the Senate Floor

    Mr. President, I strongly oppose Senator Bennett’s amendment to strike Section 220 from the bill.  The debate about Section 220 is essentially a debate about the openness of the legislative process.  It is a debate about the right of the American people to know who is spending money to influence their elected representatives and how that money is being spent. 

    It is important not to be misled by the use of the term “grassroots lobbying” in Section 220.  We aren’t talking here about constituents reading the newspaper and deciding to call their Member of Congress to weigh in on the issue of the day.  No, what Section 220 deals with is paid grassroots lobbying, the spending of money to try to get the public to contact Congress.  It is estimated that grassroots lobbying is a billion dollar business.  That’s a billion undisclosed dollars spent by special interests to influence the legislative process.  We should keep in mind as well that in 2005 a few million of those undisclosed dollars went to Grassroots Interactive, a so-called “grassroots” lobbying firm controlled by Jack Abramoff.  Emails made public by the Indian Affairs Committee indicate that Abramoff and his accomplice Michael Scanlon prided themselves on being able to make it appear as if there was significant public concern over an issue. Further, those e-mails suggest that Abramoff and Scanlon used the grassroots lobbying firm as a way to avoid public scrutiny over their activities because current law does not require disclosure for grassroots lobbying firms.  For example, Jack Abramoff reportedly paid Ralph Reed $1.2 million to use his Christian Coalition network to stimulate public opposition to a tribal casino; under current law, Ralph Reed’s supporters were completely in the dark about the fact that their anti-gambling efforts were being funded by a competing tribal casino. 

    The lobbying disclosure law, as it stands now, contains a billion dollar loophole.  All Section 220 does is close that loophole.

    I’m going to address some of the claims made by the Senator from Utah, but first let me explain what Section 220 does.  First, it requires registered lobbyists to report how much they spend on efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on the lobbying disclosure reports that they are already required to file .  Second, it requires large professional so-called “grassroots lobbying firms” to report on the amount they receive for their services, just like any other lobbyist.  And that’s it, Mr. President; that’s all Section 220 does.  Organizations do not have to report on the amounts they spend to communicate with their own members, and they only have to report on the cost of their communications with the general public if they already are registered and file under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. 

    By the way, Mr. President, communications to fewer than 500 people are not considered by Section 220 to be communications to the general public.  And here is the important thing, Mr. President, private citizens can still call, write, email, fax, or visit their Senators anytime they want, in response to a call from a telemarketer or an email from an organization they belong to, or because they read something in the morning paper, without ever have to report anything at all.  Citizens are completely unaffected by this provision. 

    Some groups, like the ACLU, have raised concerns that Section 220 will intrude on Americans’ freedom of speech and right to petition the government.  I appreciate the ACLU’s concerns and am grateful for its vigilance in protecting our civil liberties, but in this case its reservations are unfounded.  In 1954, in United States v. Harriss, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of disclosure requirements in the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, stating that Congress is entitled to require “a modicum of information from those who for hire attempt to influence legislation or who collect or spend funds for that purpose.” That is exactly what Section 220 does.  Without disclosure, the Court warned, “the voice of the people may all too easily be drowned out by the voice of special interest groups seeking favored treatment while masquerading as proponents of the public weal.”  Paid grassroots lobbying is a billion dollar business.  It will not be chilled or discouraged by the very reasonable disclosure requirements in Section 220.

    While the ACLU’s opposition to Section 220 is honest and heartfelt, the same cannot be said of attacks made by some other groups.  Their claims are so outrageous, so manifestly untrue, so unhinged from any connection to the reality of this bill, that I would like to assume that they have been misinformed about the details of the section, or that perhaps they are mistakenly referring to an entirely different piece of legislation.  Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that they are engaged in a campaign of deliberate misinformation about the details of Section 220.  And of course, because of the loophole they are trying to protect, we may never know who is spending big money to try to convince the public to tell us to oppose this provision. 

    Now I certainly would not claim that the Senator from Utah is deliberately trying to mislead the Senate.  But his statement yesterday shows a deep misunderstanding of how Section 220 works.  So let me address several of the claims he made.  First, the Senator from Utah said the following:

    Someone who gets his neighbors together and says, let’s all write our congressmen on this issue and then spends some money doing it, under this provision, becomes a paid lobbyist and if he does not report and register, would be fined $200,000 for having done that.

    Mr. President, that is simply not true.  The definition of lobbyist and the requirements for registration are not changed by this bill or section 220.  A lobbyist doesn’t have to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act unless he makes a lobbying contact on behalf of a client and receives over $5,000 for lobbying activities engaged in for a particular client.  So the person who gets his neighbors together as described by the Senator from Utah and spends some money getting them to write some letters is not a lobbyist and does not have to register – before this bill, or afterwards.  That is not just a matter of interpretation of the statute, it is the undisputed meaning of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. 

    The Senator from Utah also said the following in his statement yesterday:

    A grass-roots lobbying group decides in its neighborhood that the most effective means of influencing and speaking up on legislation is to send out letters to its membership. Or perhaps it may decide the most
    effective means would be to buy a mailing list and send out letters to the people on the mailing list. As soon as they spend the money to buy the mailing list, there is a paid lobbyist involved. And if the registration is not correct, there is a $200,000 fine against that group if we leave this — this provision in the bill as it is.

    Again, Mr. President, that is not true.  Unless an organization makes direct contact with a member of Congress and spends more than $10,000 in a quarter on lobbying activities, then it does not have to register.  And if it does not have to register, it does not have to report its spending on that mailing list.  In addition, and this is very important, a group’s spending to communicate with its own members is not considered grassroots lobbying at all.

    The only way that this group would have to register is if it makes direct contact with a Member of Congress and spends over $10,000 in a quarter on lobbying activities,   not including communicating with the general public to try to get the general public to contact the Congress.  If the group does that, then Mr. President, it is not a small grassroots lobbying group.  And yes, it has to register and report.  I think that is the correct result. 

    Mr. President, I have taken a fair amount of time here to respond to the Senator from Utah because this legislation is too important to let mistaken discussions of this provision stand without an answer. 

    Some of section 220’s opponents have claimed that it is designed to keep the public in the dark about the legislative process, that it targets individual citizens and small grassroots organizations, that it will prevent organizations from communicating with the public, and that it will smother lobbyists in miles of red tape.  None of these claims are true.  Not one.

    I suppose that the groups spreading this misinformation are so afraid of Section 220 that they are willing to say anything to stop it, but I wonder what exactly they are so afraid of.  Section 220 only applies to registered lobbyists and large grassroots lobbying firms, and it does not prohibit or restrict their activities in any way.  In fact, Section 220 merely makes public how much money they spend and how they spend it.  Surely these groups that have tried to convince people to contact our offices with mistaken claims about the bill aren’t afraid of a little sunlight?  Or maybe they are.

    Mr. President, we are so close to passing the kind of ethics bill that the public wants, that the 2006 elections endorsed, and that our democracy needs.  Defeating this amendment will bring us closer to the day that we can go back to our states to tell our constituents that we delivered real, bipartisan lobbying reform.  But what will our constituents say if this amendment succeeds and the Senate votes to reopen a billion dollar loophole in the lobbying disclosure law?  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues not to be fooled by the phony arguments being advance by opponents of this provision.  Vote No on the Senator from Utah’s amendment. 

    I yield the floor.

    • 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?

  2. 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.

    • 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>

      (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.’.

      <

      p>
      That ain’t us.  And then you go to the operative section of the bill:

      <

      p>

      (4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

      <

      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.

  3. 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.

  4. James Dobson, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and I all got what we wanted: the blogger-registration section was removed from US 1.

Archives