Grassroots Lobbying legislation possible threat to influential blogs

Posted on January 10, 2007

I say with all candor that I do not know what the proposed legislation that I’m about to quote is really supposed to mean, but I do know that it worries me. I imagine it will worry the ACLU, for that matter. Pending before the Senate, with a vote imminent (as a matter of fact, it is numbered Senate Bill 1), is the grandly titled (as Title II of the bill) “The Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007″. There is probably some good ideas in there, but also buried at section 220 is the following:

SEC. 220. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING.

(a) Definitions- Section 3 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended–

(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.’; and

(2) by adding at the end of the following:

`(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.

`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `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.

`(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.

My first question is this: has there been a great problem of out-of-control efforts to appeal directly to citizens to influence their elected representatives? I know there have been lobbying scandals reported for some time, but have any included “groups” or “entities” who attempt to influence the public to in turn influence their members of Congress? Note again the last sentence of what I’ve quoted:

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.

Naturally that means that an attempt to influence the general public (that would include you, the readers of this and every other post) that is directed at more than 500 members of the general public, would fall under the definition regulated by the new legislation. Does that mean that STACLU or CourtZero, by virtue of “paying” for internet servers and blogads and such, will now have to file quarterly reports upon pain of a $100,000 fine per failure to file (as long as post gets more than 500 hits)?

The thing is, I just don’t know the answer to that. I could certainly imagine a federal court concluding that the answer is yes, and that is troubling. Therefore, I suggest that exactly 499 of you contact your Senators and urge them to take this section out of SB1. If 500 of you call, however, you didn’t hear it from me.

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, News

Trackback URL

Comments

3 Responses to “Grassroots Lobbying legislation possible threat to influential blogs”

learner on January 10th, 2007 12:19 pm

They just keep chipping away at our rights. Grass root organizations have as much right to organize voters as both the Republicans and Democrats do. Its an individuals choice to choose support or nonsupport as they themselves see the need.
Sally on January 11th, 2007 6:51 pm

So if I write an email encouraging 10 friends of mine to call their Senators about a bill, and my 10 friends forward it to 10 of their friends, and all *those* people forward it to… Well, we see where this is going. Big Brother lives again.
M. Sheldon on January 13th, 2007 7:38 pm

Amendment 20 has been proposed for this legislation. It would remove the language in 220.

Encourage your senator to vote yes on this amendment.