STOP READING My blog..

I don't want to have to report myself to the government...:)

New lobbying bill to criminalize political bloggers?

One of the Democratic priorities for the new Congress was passage of a lobbyist reform bill, but the introduction of S.1 into the Senate has caused a veritable firestorm of controversy. That's because section 220 of the bill introduces disclosure requirements for "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." The Traditional Values Coalition calls this section the "most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever proposed in the United States Senate," while GrassrootsFreedom.com chairman Richard Viguerie says that if it passes, "We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy." But are these accurate statements, or is truth the first casualty of rhetoric?

S.1 would change the rules for lobbyists. It bans all gifts from lobbyists, imposes restrictions on trips and accommodation offered to elected officials, and requires all "earmarks" to be identified in spending bills, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the bill also wants to bring disclosure requirements to the murky world of astroturf groups (so-called because they mimic real grassroots organizations). This is certainly a noble goal; undisclosed corporate money washes through so many front groups now that it can be difficult to tell when opinions are genuine and when they are bought and sold.

Section 220 of the bill "would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K. Street lobbyists," said Viguerie in a statement, but the truth isn't that simple.

So what's in the bill?

Section 220 introduces a series of modifications to the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act. The most important is that "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" now counts as "lobbying" under certain circumstances. Currently, lobbyists are only considered as such if they have contact with elected officials or staff members. Should the new bill become law, disclosure and reporting requirements for lobbyists would be extended to groups who attempt to influence the general public to contact legislators.

This is what has inspired claims that bloggers and activists of all stripes will suddenly be classed as lobbyists and will be monitored by the government. What the bill says, though, is that the rules only apply to people who are paid by clients to encourage the public to contact Congress about specific legislation. The rules do not apply to any communication directed at less than 500 people, they do not apply to any communication directed at a group's current membership, and they do not impose any speech regulations (all that is required is a quarterly report describing where one's money came from and what bills were worked on).

Would this apply to a political blogger? Not usually. Because section 220 is only a series of changes to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, that legislation's other rules still apply. According to OMB Watch, a government accountability watchdog group, the LDA's registration requirement is only triggered by groups that spend more than $24,500 on lobbying semiannually and employ a least one person who spends 20 percent or more of their work time on lobbying. The bill also concerns only the federal government; groups operating at the state level are exempt.

Hmmm so if I don't make money or get money for my blog I am OK. Well thank GOD. I make jack from it and anyway only have 2 reads, y wife and my dog. And I force the dog to read it. :) I know I know, animal cruelty. But hey, the dog likes it.

3,363 views 21 replies
Reply #2 Top
Not a problem--they'll have to find me first!
Reply #3 Top
Not a problem--they'll have to find me first!
Reply #4 Top
i'm guessin greywar's link showed something that affirms that the provision is out of the bill, or the bill failed...in either case, the link was broken when i tried it, so i can only assume....

but aside from that...i didn't read the "most important" provision as you interpreted it. i interpreted it as saying that if a person was being paid to go out and blog for a particular interest, that must be disclosed. kind of like every time CNN does a story on AOL they have to disclose their corporate relationship with AOL, time warner....

i have no problem with that if i read it right. i already know there are many supposed "independent" bloggers out there who are actually paid by different interests to spread their word. it would be nice to see them exposed to everyone for who they really are.

a recent example of something i wish there was more disclosure on,,,,i might be the last person on the planet, but i only learned about a month ago that NBC's Andrea Mitchell is ex fed chairman Alan Greenspan's wife. i guess i missed that memo....
Reply #6 Top
As we get closer to 2008, I think we'll start to understand and appreciate the need to do SOMETHING about this. I don't think this was the right answer, BUT, when we are besieged with bloggers who aren't bloggers we'll feel the pain.

It doesn't take much effort for a campaign or pac to sit down a few volunteers who create blogs under fake names and post the same old campaign advertising disguised as a blog. Or worse, hack jobs done anonymously to utilize the "lying for justice" phenomenon promoted by people like Moby in the last couple of elections.

Maybe I'm blowing the possibility out of proportion, but with all the possibilities of search engine association, etc., I can't see why they WOULDN'T use such techniques. If we find 20 new blogs per day with nothing but DU rants, we might see the need to do something...

No one has put forth a solution that would be palatable, or that would even work, though.
Reply #7 Top
The link did lead to the defeat of that secion as you guessed. it was from Instpundit and his link likely crashed the senate swerver. Additionally the bill actually only would have required action if a blogger was

A. retained by an outside agency as a paid advocate

AND

B. urged people to cantact members of congress exlicitly

AND

C. Either received or spent in excess of $25,000 in the course of the atcual urging (not just blogging)

If ANY of the 3 conditions above were not met *simultaneously* it wouldn't have applied. It was blown way out of proportion and now it doesn't matter in any case.
Reply #8 Top
It doesn't take much effort for a campaign or pac to sit down a few volunteers who create blogs under fake names and post the same old campaign advertising disguised as a blog.


It takes a shitload of effort to get these blogs any readership though. thats the bit that matters. Try as hard as you like, you won't be Kos, Instapundit, Powerline, or even Flopping Aces without consistently good blogging or a really huge scoop followed by good blogging.
Reply #9 Top
i'm guessin greywar's link showed something that affirms that the provision is out of the bill, or the bill failed...


It is working now. It basically shows where the senate killed the amendment.
Reply #10 Top
"It takes a shitload of effort to get these blogs any readership though. thats the bit that matters. Try as hard as you like, you won't be Kos, Instapundit, Powerline, or even Flopping Aces without consistently good blogging or a really huge scoop followed by good blogging."


You miss the point. One blog with a huge readership is, as you said, hard to do. It ISN'T hard, though, to make 100 blogs on 100 different blog sites, and use the same blog promotion junk everyone else uses.

You don't have to be Kos or instapundit, obviously, because we're here and we aren't either. One of our blogs has a moderate amount of voice, but 100, or 1000, or 10,000 such blogs would be a substantial presence, and you could probably create that many a day with a room full of volunteers and a bunch of scripts.

Which would you say would reach more people: Two teenage volunteers knocking on doors with clipboards, or the same two posting constantly on blog sites? We don't get many hits at all, and yet I see JU blogs come up on google searches.

Reply #11 Top
It comes down to transparency and accountability. Kos isn't going to get away with anything. If they step over the line, they are accountable for it. One of us, less so, but we still are established in our blogs and aren't liable just to walk off.

A hit-and-run blogger with a throwaway email address might as well be a ghost. That is, unless you go to the trouble of tracing IPs back to the PAC sweatshop that has them making blogs and posting comments, most of which will probably be at the same level as the swiftboat vets and below.

This won't be 'big' blog level stuff. It will be the Col on crack, with a host of rumors and political fables to spread, imho.
Reply #12 Top
To SConn1: No, not sorry. It was a slow server. Hope the smiley face is sincere!
Reply #13 Top
To SConn1: No, not sorry. It was a slow server. Hope the smiley face is sincere!
Reply #14 Top

I disagree.. even if a capaign pays 1000 people to wrtie 100 "fake blogs" a day on random blogsites it is unlikely that most of those will even get a single page hit. Even if they use blgo promoters the hits they get aren't quality activist type hits. heck half of the stuff you get from BE are click-bots and the other half tend to be people who dont read anything on BE at all. Ditto for the other click traders.

Yes you can put out boilerplate party line crap on a few thousand unread blogs but that sort of viral technique is amazingly difficult to pull off (look at Sony's recent PSP viral debacle) sucessfully. most of the companies who do this (and they are out there) hav a long-term deep cover program whereby their operators are used in small groups to infiltrate a place like JU, establish themselves as knowledgeable credible folks who then at some point in the future write reviews or recommendations that are favorable towards a person or product.

Frankly if a politcal campaign puts that much effort into something I would just call them a "blogger" at that point. No registration necessary.

Reply #16 Top
This won't be 'big' blog level stuff. It will be the Col on crack, with a host of rumors and political fables to spread, imho.


Or worse, hack jobs done anonymously to utilize the "lying for justice" phenomenon promoted by people like Moby in the last couple of elections.


i agree with ya baker that "something must be done" but i think you are being a lil one sided in your examples...let's not forget about armsstrong williams and the 240K (that we know about) he got from the administration while he was goin on hardball et al as well as his writings on and offline as an "independent journalist."

there are many "political machines" on all sides of the political fence all trying to get that "edge" over the competition. it's not a left or right thing...all sides have done it, and all sides rationalize that when they do it it is ok. but it's not. not by the left, right or middle. it's pure deception no matter who does it.



Reply #17 Top
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, greywar.

What you are describing is the absolute opposite of how this kind of work gets done. That kind of "quality", mass-audience thinking is what got Sony nailed, and that's why the others that behave that way always get caught. They hire fashion models to stand around in crowded malls and take pictures of each other with a hot new cameraphone, or crap like the Sony thing or "lonelygirl".

Viral marketing and campaigning functions in a different universe. You can't think in terms of hits and bang-for-the-buck and reaching a wide audience. Viral marketing is to real marketing as a pick pocket is to David Copperfield. Think confidence scams.

If the people being marketed to have any interest whatsoever in the person doing the marketing, the jig is up. If more than a few people turn on the street to stare, you bow out and walk away quickly. If they want to find out more about you, you're doomed.

Viral marketing isn't about a carrier handing the content in 1:1 fashion. You don't spread diseases by requiring everyone to walk up to Patient Zero and get sneezed on. If you do, patient zero doesn't remain effective for very long, no matter how deep the cover is.
Reply #18 Top
If the people being marketed to have any interest whatsoever in the person doing the marketing, the jig is up.


Exactly why there is nothing to fear from campaigns trying this sort of this. It only helps them if they can get a significant number of people to care, and if significant numbers of people care then the fraud is auto-exposed, ergo no need for legislation.
Reply #19 Top
"it's not a left or right thing...all sides have done it, and all sides rationalize that when they do it it is ok. but it's not. not by the left, right or middle. it's pure deception no matter who does it."


It won't be, no, but up until now it has definitely been a lefty phenomenon. And for good reason. The definition of "conservative" usually doesn't lead to a lot of activism, because we don't want things changed all that much.

I did mention swiftboatvets above if you notice. And there are conservative mirrors of some of the larger blogs. I don't think you can really find a conservative equivalent to Democratic Underground or MoveOn, though eventually one will arise.

Reply #20 Top
"It only helps them if they can get a significant number of people to care, and if significant numbers of people care then the fraud is auto-exposed, ergo no need for legislation."


Operative word "they". Again, viral marketing doesn't work in the way that you portray. As I said, think in terms of pickpockets, or diseases. What you are saying is that if a person can't sneeze on a million people a day, then there's no reason to believe they are a threat as a carrier.

If you are claiming that viral marketing doesn't work at all, well, the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. If you could point to obvious cases where it did, well, they'd be failures.
Reply #21 Top
It won't be, no, but up until now it has definitely been a lefty phenomenon. And for good reason. The definition of "conservative" usually doesn't lead to a lot of activism, because we don't want things changed all that much.


heritage foundation? focus on the family? etc, etc...again, i don't think the left has an exclusive on this stuff. and conservatives seem to want plenty of changes from where i sit, just as liberals do. they just want different kinds of changes to happen most of the time. i think many more groups engage in this than is known. i would be willing to bet that 99% of them haven't been caught as there hasn't been any real concerted operations to expose them.

outside of politics, there have been people busted for promoting stocks and other investments that they had interests in and going into chat rooms and message boards (i'm not sure about blogging specifically, but it's hardly out of the question)and encouraging people to invest in certain investments. that's not a "right wing" thing, but it's not a left wing thing either.

the "anonymity" that is granted on the web exposes everyone to all kinds of this stuff i believe. and i also believe we don't know the 1/2 of what's goin on.

I did mention swiftboatvets above if you notice


i did miss that

I don't think you can really find a conservative equivalent to Democratic Underground or MoveOn, though eventually one will arise.


again, i think there are plenty of conservative organizations and think tanks out there. they may not have been founded on the web like moveon(i don't know much about the underground other than they seem like a few wing nuts trying to look bigger than they are, but that's typical on the web)but they (con.groups)are out there and already use the web to promote. why would viral marketing be so out of reach for them? they have consultants and people hipper to the workings of the net.

remember our go rounds with "lulabelle?" there were many times that her responses and statements had me thinkin she was workin for the church..i can't prove that and very well could be wrong, but for someone who wasn't a member here, she sure was adamant to stick around and argue for the CC. i think most parishoners would have run screaming from the kind of rude abuse one can take in a debate around here.

just some thoughts,,,,