Thread: NEW CONGRESS SHREDDING US CONSTITUTION

NEW CONGRESS SHREDDING US CONSTITUTION

http://www.newswithviews.com/loeffler/loeffler20.htm

John Loeffler
January 19, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Senate Bill 1 and House Resolution 4682 under Fire

Bad things often come in good packages. Currently both houses of congess are considering ethics bills to provide for much-needed lobbying and earmark reform. However, buried in one section of both house and senate bills are provisions to severely restrict the ability of grassroots organizations to monitor the actions of their elected representatives and report on these to their clients. In reality, it will achieving exactly the opposite of ethics reform because it allows for more congressional acvitivty away from public scrutiny.

The advent of alternative media has had a major impact on U.S. politics for the last twenty years. Slowly but surely the exclusive chokehold the country's national information gatekeepers -- major radio and TV networks plus the major newswire services -- previously held on the flow of news has been eroded by talk radio, both on-air and internet, weblogs and online newspapers.

A decade ago politicians discovered with much chagrin that this "alternative media" was actually affecting the outcomes of elections and limiting what they could get away with once in office. Statements and actions by politicians which the mainliners left unchallenged were examined minutely in the alternative media. Even small sections of pending bills lawmakers hoped wouldn't be noticed have made it into blogs and on the air in record time, resulting in angry calls to force removal of the offending provisions. There are too many people watching them carefully and reporting through the relatively inexpensive medium of the internet.

Now it seems some congressmen want to fight back. Buried within Senate Bill One, which as we pointed out promotes long-sought lobbying reform, exists Section 220 defining individuals or organizations reaching more than 500 people on a grassroots level with information about political issues as lobbying organizations, if the information can be construed as urging people to contact congress.

These individuals or groups would be required to register and subsequently file unwieldy amounts of paperwork, whenever they transmit political information to their subscribers. Failure to do so would result in $50,000-$100,000 fines per violation plus jail time for willful failure to comply. This would be a staggering burden of proof and compliance to small grass roots individuals or organizations affected by the new requirements.

Depending on how the language of the bill is interpreted, groups affected by this opprobrious legislation includes publishers of small newsletters and financial publications, websites, broadcast and internet talk show hosts, alternative radio shows, public interest organizations, civic organizations, even churches and religious denominations, and other nonprofit groups. The definitions include even private individuals, who might voluntarily pay for media space to distribute important messages to the general public on political matters with which they are concerned.

Under Senate Bill One and its House companion bill H.R. 4682 an organization is classified as a “grassroots lobbying firm” if it attempts to influence the general public to contact federal officials in order to express their own views on a federal issue. It must spend only only $50,000 ($25,000 under the House bill) for such efforts in a quarterly period, it will be required to register as lobbyists. Many radio programs and websites easily spend that amount of money in the course of their activities.

This is not the first time Congress has sought to impede freedom of speech. Every so often an attempt is made to revive the Fairness Doctrine, which requires broadcasters to provide equal time and balanced viewpoints for political and social issues. While this sounds fair, and it worked when only editorials were involved, in reality it creates a nightmare for radio and TV station licensees that engage in talk formats, because the paperwork and logistics required to comply with such a law make it impossible for the stations to function. As such the Fairness Doctrine is a stealth way to surpress free speech on radio stations by making it very difficult for them to function. As such, even the Financial Sense Newshour might be forced "off the air."

Providing this type of compliance for talk shows is impossible and the risk of large fines for violations of arbitrary stipulations is so great, that stations tend to cancel talk shows and run programming they consider to be less "risky." In essence the talk shows can be chased off the air just with the threat of arbitrary fines and penalties. Senate Bill One will have the same effect on small grassroots publishers, websites, radio shows and organizations if it passes as is. Remember, failure to jump through all the paperwork hoops properly for Senate Bill One could result in $50,000-$100,000 fines per violation!

Currently, an amendment to Senate Bill One been proposed by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to remove Subsection 220 from the bill, which includes grassroots organizations among those classified as lobbying organizations. Persons concerned about the loss of alternative media and the danger to free speech should contact their senators and urge them to vote for the Bennett amendment. Members of the House should be urged to vote against provisions in House Resolution 4682, which included grassroots organizations.

It's interesting to note that if Senate Bill One were currently law, writing this would be illegal because we had not filed the proper paperwork with the federal government. Assaults like this on the First Amendment and the right of the people to have free speech and seek redress must not to be tolerated in whatever form they appear.

There is debate among legal experts as to exactly how the provisions of Senate Bill One could ultimately be interpreted and applied, which brings us down to a rule of thumb: If we can't agree what this means as a bill now, we definitely don't want it as law later.

I would really like to know which Senator(s) added Section 220! This would be very telling.

It's obvious from the vote on the Bennett amendment that it was a Democrat. The voting was split almost along party lines with the Dems voting to keep section 220 in the bill (even though the ACLU objected to it). It was the Republicans who saved the day.

Now we need to get the House to remove this same provision from their bill, or to make sure this hapens in conference committee.

This is the House resolution mentioned in the article which also needs to be removed!


H.R. 4682
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)
February 1, 2006

SEC. 204. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING.

(a) Disclosure of Paid Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying- Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--

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

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(1 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.

`(19) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying'--

`(A) means any paid attempt to influence the general public, or segments thereof, to engage in grassroots lobbying or lobbying contacts; and

`(B) does not include any attempt described in subparagraph (A) by a person or entity directed to its members, employees, officers or shareholders, unless such attempt is financed with funds directly or indirectly received from or arranged by a lobbyist or other registrant under this Act retained by another person or entity.

`(20) 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 $50,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.

(b) Registration- Section 4(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `45' and inserting `20';

(2) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3)(A)--

(A) by striking `as estimated' and inserting `as included'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii) the term `lobbying activities' shall not include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.';

(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and

(4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:

`(3) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 20 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'.

(c) Separate Itemization of Paid Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying- Section 5(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (3), by--

(A) inserting after `total amount of all income' the following: `(including a separate good faith estimate of the total amount relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and

(B) striking `and' after the semicolon;

(2) in paragraph (4), by--

(A) inserting after `total expenses' the following: `(including a good faith estimate of the total amount relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that total amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and

(B) striking the period and inserting a semicolon;

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) in the case of a grassroots lobbying firm, for each client--

`(A) a good faith estimate of the total disbursements made for grassroots lobbying activities, and a subtotal for disbursements made for grassroots lobbying through paid advertising;

`(B) identification of each person or entity other than an employee who received a disbursement of funds for grassroots lobbying activities of $10,000 or more during the period and the total amount each person or entity received; and

`(C) if such disbursements are made through a person or entity who serves as an intermediary or conduit, identification of each such intermediary or conduit, identification of the person or entity who receives the funds, and the total amount each such person or entity received.'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not apply with respect to reports relating to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying activities.'.

(d) Large Grassroots Expenditure- Section 5(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `No later' and inserting:

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), not later'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(2) LARGE GRASSROOTS EXPENDITURE- A registrant that is a grassroots lobbying firm and that receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate amount of $250,000 or more on paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying for a client, or for a group of clients for a joint effort, shall file--

`(A) a report under this section not later than 20 days after receiving, spending, or agreeing to spend that amount; and

`(B) an additional report not later than 20 days after each time such registrant receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate amount of $250,000 or more on paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying for a client, or for a group of clients for a joint effort.'.