Lobbying backlash could hit bloggers

[dogday]

A bill that Senate Democrats have touted as a means to curb corruption in Washington could instead target some political bloggers with new regulations and even criminal penalties.

The legislation, which began as an attempt to rewrite federal lobbying laws in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal, has ballooned to more than 9,000 words and a thicket of complicated rules. It was the subject of a failed attempt by Senate Democrats on Wednesday to defeat a Republican filibuster over a line-item veto, and debate is continuing Thursday afternoon.

Much of the bill's wording is obtuse. But one section says that certain political bloggers who make or spend $25,000 per quarter and who encourage readers to contact their elected representatives would be forced to register as lobbyists--or face up to 10 years in prison.

"You have a First Amendment right to contact your congressperson and you have a First Amendment right to tell others to do so," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Now they're saying you have to report to the federal government if you're going to engage in this First Amendment-protected activity."

http://news.com.com/Lobbying%20backlash%20could%20hit%20bloggers/2100-1028_3-6151311.html?tag=sas.email

[whathappened]

1. time to go to

code names for what we want to tell others on du

[IDemo]

13. 8643 n/t

[FormerDittoHead]

2. We have to understand they're trying to prevent "astroturf" bloggers...

astroturf: corporate financed fake grassroots movements, like this "fairtax" thing which I'm CONVINCED is well financed... PBS had a GREAT documentary about this about a month ago...

My point is that *I agree* that SOMETHING should be done to curb astroturf websites and pundits, and a "lobbyist" designation would be fair, for example, if you're receiving $100,000 a year from a major corporation to pretend you're a grassroots movement defending "helpless" oil and coal companies....

What I DON'T like, however, would be the idea that someone running a real grassroots political blog but having a large subscriber base (cough! DU, cough!) would have to jump through the same hoops....

[dogday]

3. Exactly

that is what I wonder as well....

[MrPrax]

4. No dice...

Astroturf is a cute term...but it isn't actually a Constitutional violation either. It's advertising and the last time I notice; advertising was perfectly legal. That includes 'ideas'...

Does Moveon astroturf? Some who hate them would say they most certainly do.
Is it the SAME as Exxon paying for bogus environmental reporting? Sure...
Is it the same as Apple 'salting' the Internet with testimonials about their wildly over hyped cell phone? You bet...

Why exactly people would want to limit their own rights by defending 'stupid people' who either want to be manipulated or CHOOSE to be manipulated, I dunno.

...it's all the same in the end; Somebody is trying to persuade you whether it be a lavish multi-million dollar *ad* campaign or a simple LTTE.

It's still ultimately up to YOU to decide -- if you feel you are not getting all the information, then precisely what would you like the public or the laws to do...force people to inform themselves?

I like an open debate...not a debate where political elites decide who can speak and how...

[FormerDittoHead]

6. "Open" REQUIRES honesty...

>..it's all the same in the end; Somebody is trying to persuade you whether it be a lavish multi-million dollar *ad* campaign or a simple LTTE.

>It's still ultimately up to YOU to decide -- ...

That public beliefs and awareness can't be manipulated and controlled, and that money offers no extra benefit, and then to wrap it all up in some libertarian personal responsibility claptrap is a foolish if not deceptive suggestion.

Apparently you're not familiar with the "cute" astroturf term, so here's some references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
good example: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/13046.html

Follow along:

One looks at an advertisement, they know where that's coming from. There's public disclosure. That's a good thing. Ultimately, it would be for a person to decide, blaw, blaw, blaw.

When you see a poll or study with surprising results, you wonder where that's coming from. "The study was financed by Monsanto"...

Now, *I* think that's a good thing. If you don't think such disclosure makes a difference in affecting people's perception of a poll or study, the basis for making their personally responsible decision, then I'll know where you're coming from.

How can you have an "open debate" when the debaters aren't being honest?

Compare these two statements:

"I'm Joe Blow and these are my personal opinions and you wouldn't be reading this unless I really believed this..."

or

"I'm Joe Blow and I'm being financed by a big company specifically to write what you're about to read and wouldn't be writing this in the first place if not for my being paid for it..."

If you can't see the difference, and the effect upon ones perception (and what leads to making a decision), we can end this right here.

Open = honest.

There are tons of laws requiring lobbyists to make public disclosure. I support these laws.

If MoveOn gets the vast majority of its financing from 1-2 major corporations, then YES, they are astroturfing and YES, should be required to publicly disclose such arrangements if they're making a good living doing so.

They can continue to say what they want to. Free speech, blaw, blaw, blaw.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, I MUST SAY I'm uncomfortable with this provision, but I DO agree that astroturf groups should be required to be HONEST about their orientation (ie: front groups for corporations)...

I think the provision should require public disclosure if say, x amount of their funding over $X comes from fewer than x contributors...

[MrPrax]

12. Debate doesn't require

honesty, facts or anything else. You are misinformed on this subject...

It requires persuasion -- that's all!

Again it ultimately comes down to the individual and what they choose. If I listen to people like you I would think that 'astro-turfing' was successful. I am not sure that it is successful and in some cases might actually work against those that want to make it seem like their numbers and support are much larger than they really are.

BUT then again...who is going to decide whether a movement is legit or not?

Moreover, it is usually unpopular ideas that 'overtime' become popular through dissemination and debate. You want to stop this process before it starts.


INDEED I think there should be MORE disclosure, but then again if you can't tell the differences between 'spin', lying or the 'facts as you see it'...then disclosure is NOT going to help.

Besides last time I looked it was perfectly acceptable for Monsanto to conduct and publish polls -- whether they want to tell you that they are financing it or not is entirely up to them.

I am real sorry that you feel that you want to provide elites with even MORE control over the political process by arbitrarily suggesting that these controls need to be in place NOW because of the internet.

People are ONLY suggesting this because censoring the internet is possible and easy to do (as China has shown) as opposed to the 'astroturfing' tactics of using the mail, using billboards, using talk shows, using 'gatekeepers' like employers, setting up front community groups, etc etc -- none of which can be 'controlled' as successfully if you notice due to our inherent rights.

So if you want censorship, I suggest you be honest about it and include all that OTHER STUFF like 'free speech' or the fact that I, or anyone ELSE, doesn't have to disclose their income sources to you simply because you have a ISP account and you happened to freely choose to read something on the internet that YOU THINK will help you make informed choices.

(but in all honesty -- if you are not 'reading' what is actually said or written and you figure that the MOST IMPORTANT fact is 'who's paying'...then I suggest you are a little too close to the libertarian arg. yourself)

[originalpckelly]

8. Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't astroturf.

I'm sick of people making money off of doing what they should be doing.

[Robbien]

5. Dobson and Texas' Perry put a lot of money into fear mongering this

That is why McCain pulled the clause from the bill. He was currying Dobson's favor.

The bill passed without this clause, so this fear mongering story is old news.

The Perrys in Texas and Focus on the Family are happy.

[originalpckelly]

10. I know. They want to keep doing shadowy things. This is only registering...

if you make more than $25,000 off of blogging and such.

Registering does not ban or even dampen freedom of expression, it is like product labeling, because people don't always know who is putting out an advertisement, or in this case a blog entry.

[originalpckelly]

7. Bullshit. First of all, this section was striken...

and secondly if you make money off of grassroots stuff, and you don't provide a place where unpaid people talk about politics, your a damn Astroturf installer.

The ACLU and all these other groups don't like it because people will have to register as political lobbyists, which is what anyone making over $25,000 off of blogging is.

[dogday]

11. You are correct, it was voted out yesterday nt

[MrPrax]

14. Good!!

It's unworkable and stupid...since when is writing on the Internet a special case for free speech control.

Remarkable...the first time in 400 hundred years the average person can write anything they want for public consumption without overt controls and you get a whole bunch of people wanting to clamp down on it...

The problem is K Street and those lobbyists and the gutless politicians (everywhere) that don't want to deal with it responsibilities of public office sincerely --

The problem is hardly some blogger who might get a couple of bucks for their writing/art who big sin is trying to get you to vote for one of two parties...??

:shrug:

[mmonk]

9. Can't this apply to talk radio

and most TV "news"?