Redstate

Believe me, if this thing were a threat to bloggers, I would have been up in arms about it weeks ago, as I was (alongside this site) in fighting the FEC/Internet issues. It just isn't.

gotta keep the powder dry for the real threats.

life...unencumbered by modular time concepts.

Adam's a bright guy who supports the rights of bloggers. But two things need to be pointed out: 1) some bloggers almost certainly will have a problem; and 2) Ultimately, the world is about more than bloggers. This bill limits the speech of lots of folks besides bloggers.

I won't try to analyze it here in depth, but I will note a couple definitions:

Under Section 220, "grassroots lobbying" means any effort, specifically including "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."

The section then provides that, "'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."

A "client" is defined elsewhere in the Act as "any person or entity that employs or retains another person for financial or other compensation to conduct lobbying activities on behalf of that person or entity. A person or entity whose employees act as lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client and an employer of such employees."

So a blogger paid to blog for an organization such as Heritage Foundation would appear to be covered. Beyond bloggers, this will ensnare other small organizations.

If you've got doubts and want to read more, I recommend analyses from these conservative groups:

The Free Speech Coalition.
The Center for Competitive Politics (Of which I am Chairman - a fact I include because proponents of the bill get all bent out of shape when I don't mention this, as if it changes the analysis).
Grassroots Freedom.org.

And as a general backgrounder on why disclosure should not be extended to communications between citizens (as opposed to lobbying of the legislature), read this CCP primer.

The bottom line really is this: should any citizen have to register with the U.S. government before communicating with other citizens about public issues, and then report to the government about their activities?

I think most Americans, and certainly most conservatives, would answer no, and so should support the Bennett proposal to remove Section 220 from the bill.

Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website

But he studiously avoids mentioning the fact that none of this gets triggered unless you've been paid $25,000 in a three month period to stimulate grassroots lobbying. All the underlying definitions fit into that, but without the monetary trigger, it's irrelevant.

Blame the flu or whatever it is that I've had for over a week now, but it didn't occur to me to check Thomas (heh) for the statutory language.

That to which Adam refers states, in relevant part:

`(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.'.

So, I mean, technically, a blogger (or preacher, or whatever) wouldn't need to be paid $25,000 in any quarterly period, but rather would "receive income of, or spend or agree to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more" in that period.

Huh. Funny. That doesn't sound like being paid $25,000.00 for lobbying efforts.

Wanna discuss in-kind contributions?

-----------
A tribute to CO

In reading the statute, it really seems to refer only to cash, not in-kind contributions.

As far as "spend or agree to spend", that's still not hitting bloggers or truly grassroots efforts. The question is why Section 220's opponents want you to think it might.

As why someone might fill a comment board with assertions that one must be paid $25,000.00 over a three-month period to trigger the statute (and that's the only way to trigger it), when of course, the clear language says otherwise.

Thoughts, Adam?

Make them good, by the way.

In reading the statute, it really seems to refer only to cash, not in-kind contributions.

Were I enforcing the statute -- which someone will eventually do -- I'd say, well, how many people are actually giving away $25,000 to voters? I'd say, Well, outside of ACORN and other left-wing groups, virtually no one.

But then I'd say, well, pro-life groups have contracted with, say, the Archdiocese of Atlanta to take advantage of Parish Halls to push for pro-life legislation. They want to use those halls to hold meetings. They would like priests to attend and speak to the value of unborn life.

And the Archdiocese, contrary to its usual practice, agrees to do this for a nominal sum.

So then I say, Golly, the Archdiocese of Atlanta has agreed to give services and facility use equal to what must be some amount of money. And despite what Adam Bonin says, there's no specific language limiting this to cash. Well, golly, that seems to trigger -- maybe -- Section 220. So let's get an economist -- I'm sure I can find one, though I probably won't retain Matson Driscoll or the equivalent (that'll be up to the Archdiocese to do) to see how much it's worth.

And lo and behold! What do we have but a trigger!

Given that the historic tendency of government is to expand a statute's construction as far as possible, you'll pardon me if your, ahem, somewhat optimistic facial assessment does me no favors.

-----------
A tribute to CO

My earlier language was imprecise -- you can also spend the $25K or agree to spend it -- but the opponents of the bill act as if there's no monetary threshold at all.

As far as your hypothesis is concerned, I just don't see that as an issue -- because all the act requires, even if that triggers the law, is that you file a form with the House saying about how much you think you're spending. Not what you're spending it on, who you're contacting or why, it seems.

As do their employees? And they perhaps take that for granted?

As far as your hypothesis is concerned, I just don't see that as an issue -- because all the act requires, even if that triggers the law, is that you file a form with the House saying about how much you think you're spending. Not what you're spending it on, who you're contacting or why, it seems.

I think you're perhaps omitting some important statutory language.

But this is moot anyway. Deo gratias.

-----------
A tribute to CO

Disregarding the $25K and other technical details, It should scare you that Congress is so intent to pass another law that restricts the public holding them accountable.. Why is anyone going along with this, Dem or Rep. We need more public scrutiny and sunlight shining into the fetid swamp Congress has become.

====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts

As do Vigurie, Dobson, McCain, and others.

Again, Vigeuire doesn't mention the $25K threshhold. I have no doubt this may impact on *his* bottom line, but it won't on yours.

USC Title 2 Chapter 26 § 1602

(2) The term “client” means any person or entity that employs or retains another person for financial or other compensation to conduct lobbying activities on behalf of that person or entity. A person or entity whose employees act as lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client and an employer of such employees. In the case of a coalition or association that employs or retains other persons to conduct lobbying activities, the client is the coalition or association and not its individual members.

I don't know how it would impact bloggers, but it could impact a site like RedState.

And it most certainly would impact organisations like the NRA, HSLDA, Focus on the Family and others who spend money and encourage grassroots lobbying.

See:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2531

or

http://www.hslda.org/elert/archive/2007/01/20070111145504.asp

But that's to say you have a general problem with lobbying regulation, not with this bill in particular.

I don't follow.

That is the definition of client referred to in this Bill when it defines a "Grassroots Lobbying Firm" as someone working on behalf of at least one client and spending $25k per quarter to do so.

Which means any group engaged in encourageing grassroots lobbying (i.e. doing what Erick has done here and said 'hey fellas, call about this one') by definition meets the 'at least one client' test.

That just leaves the $25k per quarter test, and that works out as employing 6 people on minimum wage (who could be doing things as mundane as fielding telephone calls, doing press releases and posting alerts on the web).

Every pressure group of a decent size, the groups most people rely upon to spot nasties in legislation, would be affected, and would have to file a report for every time they "encouraged grassroots lobbying".

What got us in this mess is a lack of reading comprehension. Like, say, a commenter not reading the whole post, and the links that run with it.

-----------
A tribute to CO

This congress, on an unfortunately bipartisn basis, is perfectly happy to see us censored and to jsut stop pesetering them while they govern in our best interests. I mean how dare we distract them???