S.1 passes infringing on Free Speech

[warpheads]

What does this mean to Democracy Now! and MoveOn.Org? And any other
political web site that urges members and members of the general public
to get involved and write/call their duly elected representitives
concerning an issue...like many of us are doing now about the war in
Iraq, poverty, Corporatism, etc? Do you also get emails from
MoveOn.org asking for donations? Do you think they reach more than 500
people? How about Democracy Now! What about a MySpace member that has
a political group and more than 500 members? Isn't it funny that the
very Democrats that benefited from the web blog and internet revolution
this last election is now infringing on the individual Americans First
Amendments right to freedom of speech by placing restrictions on the
very vehicle that got them elected?
Read the text below and think about this, consider the implications.
In particular, read (17) and remember YOU are a member of the general public.

Senate Bill S.1 section 220 passed:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c1104v7c7E:e38473:

`(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.

[Rainscents]

1. This bill IS written by "R"

:crazy:

BTW... Do you have the list of the Congress who voted for this bill? If not, why you posting this tread?

[warpheads]

15. Why do you need the list and...

what does that have to do with my post? Where are you coming from? What's the problem? I don't mind not posting here, there are other places to spread the word. But; BTW: What's the problem?

[derby378]

2. And how does this "infringe" free speech?

I have no time to look up USC 1602 to figure where that comes into play. Please help the time-challenged on this board.

[warpheads]

12. Read (17) of 220.

What everyone here is missing...oddly enough, is (17) of 220. They keep reading the section on paid lobbyist and not the section on members of the general public; or they misconstrue the meaning.
It reads:
"(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."

This is a separate section from the one covering paid lobbyists.

[haymark]

3. Silver lining

Focus on the Family and the NRA are curtailed too.

[dogday]

4. Section 220 was stricken

In a victory for grassroots activists across the country, Republicans stood united Thursday night and helped strike Section 220 from the Senate Ethics Bill. This section would have put undue regulations on the activities of grassroots organizations. Almost all Democrats voted to keep Section 220 in the bill.

By a 55 to 43 vote, the Bennett Amendment which would strike Section 220 from the Senate Ethics Bill (S. 1) passed with unanimous support from Republicans. Seven Democrats supported the amendment while all other Democrats voted against it.


As noted at LifeNews.com, “The measure, before the amendment, would have imposed strict reporting requirements.”

The restrictions would have been in place for any group conducting the smallest amount of lobbying and local pro-life advocates who didn’t comply properly would face fines and jail sentences for noncompliance. … The provisions it fixed were so onerous that even the pro-abortion American Civil Liberties Union sided with pro-life groups in opposition to them.

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=400

[warpheads]

11. You're missing it...

You all keep refering to the paid lobbiest section, Read (17) of 220:
"(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."
It says MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
That's you and me.

[dogday]

13. I just posted from an article

I did not post my opinion......

[BattyDem]

20. No, you're missing it

"By a 55 to 43 vote, the Bennett Amendment which would strike Section 220 from the Senate Ethics Bill (S. 1) passed with unanimous support from Republicans. Seven Democrats supported the amendment while all other Democrats voted against it."

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=400


The ENTIRE SECTION (220) has been deleted - it's gone. Part 17 of Section 220 is irrelevant because Section 220 is NO LONGER PART OF THE BILL.

[BattyDem]

5. The bill was amended ... that section is gone

:bounce:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Bennett Amdt No. 20 )
Vote Date: January 18, 2007, 08:21 PM
Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 20 to S.Amdt. 3 to S. 1
Statement of Purpose: To strike a provision relating to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.

Vote Counts:
YEAs 55
NAYs 43
Not Voting 2

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00017

[originalpckelly]

7. It really doesn't matter anyway, because it wouldn't have outlawed...

people who are merely expressing their opinions to 500 or more people register, only those people who are paid to express their opinion to register.

Actually, now that I've read the language, I wish they would have left it in the bill, because that would have prevented people paid by Senators and Congresspeople from lobbying the public, unless they register like normal lobbyists.

[BattyDem]

8. I know. Someone pointed that out the other night, but a lot of DUers were still upset

I think we've been victimized by a disinformation campaign because all the "Nay" votes on this amendment came from Democrats. That tells me it was the RWers who didn't like this bill. We probably would have been better off if the provision stayed in. :-(

[Ian David]

9. You think we've been Abramoffed?

Remember when Abramoff convinced anti-gambling fundies to fight against an anti-gambling bill?

Remember when someone convinced anti-porn advocates to vote against a measure to protect children from porn by establish a .xxx top-level domain?

Maybe someone got us to campaign against something that would have been GOOD for us.

Maybe we've been Abramoffed.

[BattyDem]

10. Yep ... it looks that way to me.

Did you check out the link to the vote count? As TahitiNut said in another thread, the only Dems that voted for the amendment were "five blue dogs and a DINO (Nelson)." :-(

[warpheads]

18. Never mind...

I can't beat that logic. Don't read the damn bill and understand it. If the Democrats vote for it; Bill Good. These are politicians and we can trust them cuz they good guys; they don't lie and do bad things like the repubs!!! Screw this place; I'm outta here.

[BattyDem]

19. I've been a "political junkie" long enough to know which politicians share my views.

While it's true that those politicians sometimes support things that I don't agree with, when a vote is split down party lines and only the "blue dogs" and the DINOs vote with the GOP, I know exactly which side I should be supporting. I've learned from experience: Republicans and DINOs don't share my values and concerns.

If drawing on knowledge that has come from past experience isn't logical, then what is?

[warpheads]

14. Nope; not the same thing...

that has nothing to do with (17)220. (17) has nothing to do with paid lobbying.
(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.

Note "voluntary" and "general Public". That's you and me.

[originalpckelly]

6. No, it won't. They're talking about "paid" grassroots lobbying.

Which is anything other than grassroots.

No, you and I won't have to register if that's the language in the bill about taking my free speech away, you need to rethink it.

That says one only has to register if they are paid to lobby at the "grassroots" level and speak to more than 500 people.

In other words, this will make people planting Astroturf register like normal lobbyists.

[warpheads]

16. Nope; still don't get it...

Again:
"(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."

Read it to me. Where does it say "Paid Lobbyist only" There is another section that deals with paid efforts. That's not what I'm talking about. Skim it real fast and don't get it. What do the words say?
"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."

You know; I hope you Democrats aren't going to turn into replicas of Repubs that close their minds everytime someone points a finger at something a Demo does and starts throwing bombs. This isn't a football game where you are defending your favorite team. This is where we need to watch BOTH sides of the isle; it's our country and neither side has done much to win trust.

[dogday]

17. I have questions myself about why the Republicans

ran with this one and not the Dems, in fact the Dems, or at least the majority less 7 voted to keep section 220 in the bill... If not for those 7 Dems, it would not of passed... What are the reasons they wanted this incorporated into S.1?