Intrusion on First Amendment Rights...affects nearly everyone on RF...

[Lindsey-Loo]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53813

^^^Read^^^

Ok, so correct if I'm wrong, but this new legislation, if passed, would apply to anyone who talks politics on a forum that over 500 people have access to...that means Religious Forums, right? And not only politics, but things that also pertain to religion somewhat, like gay marriage and abortion...IS THIS INSANE OR WHAT?!?!?!

 

[Bishka]

Oh my!

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Oh my!

That's what I said. It seems unconstitutional to me.

 

[Djamila]

I'm not surprised. When you have one party, in this case the Republicans, behaving as they have - without consequence - obviously the other parties will try to do the same thing, in their own favor.

The Bush administration has, for the past six years, been similar to if not worse than a typical Eastern European dictatorship. The government, beyond the President and his select few comrades, has been little more than a window dressing.

To see that take hold in the United States, with the support of roughly half of the population, sends a message to politicians that they can assume more power and no one will bat an eyelash.

 

[Booko]

Before assuming there's any basis to this, it might be worth it to review the following info on this source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily#Controversial_articles

Not to mention find the actual text of S.1 section 220.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

I'm not surprised. When you have one party, in this case the Republicans, behaving as they have - without consequence - obviously the other parties will try to do the same thing, in their own favor.

The Bush administration has, for the past six years, been similar to if not worse than a typical Eastern European dictatorship. The government, beyond the President and his select few comrades, has been little more than a window dressing.

At least with Republicans in power, we wouldn't have to licensed to post opinions on Religious Forums!!!

 

[Ody]

world net daily. Paleoconservatives lol.

 

[Booko]

At least with Republicans in power, we wouldn't have to licensed to post opinions on Religious Forums!!!

No, they would just snoop on our phone calls.

I'm not too keen on anyone's political party at this point, in case you hadn't seen my general jadedness over the whole thing.

 

[standing_alone]

Not to mention find the actual text of S.1 section 220.

Well, since no one else has...

S.1

To provide greater transparency in the legislative process. (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

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.

• • • `(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--

• • • • `(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;

• • • • `(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;

• • • • `(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;

• • • • `(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or

• • • • `(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.

• • `(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.'.

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

• • (1) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3) (A), 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.'; and

• • (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

• • `(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 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 of income 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) inserting `or a grassroots lobbying firm' after `lobbying firm';

• • (2) in paragraph (4), by inserting after `total expenses' the following: `(including a good faith estimate of the total amount of expenses 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

• • (3) 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) Good Faith Estimates and De Minimis Rules for Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying-

• • (1) IN GENERAL- Section 5(c) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(c)) is amended to read as follows:

• `(c) Estimates of Income or Expenses- For purposes of this section, the following shall apply:

• • `(1) Estimates of income or expenses shall be made as follows:

• • • `(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $10,0000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.

• • • `(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $10,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $10,000 for the reporting period.

• • `(2) Estimates of income or expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying shall be made as follows:

• • • `(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $25,000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.

• • • `(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $25,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $25,000 for the reporting period.'.

• • (2) TAX REPORTING- Section 15 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1610) is amended--

• • • (A) in subsection (a)--

• • • • (i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

• • • • (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

• • • • (iii) by adding at the end the following:

• • `(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'; and

• • • (B) in subsection (b)--

• • • • (i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

• • • • (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

• • • • (iii) by adding at the end the following:

• • `(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Gqs05m:e38473:

 

[Booko]

Isn't this just the proposed law that would require influence on the part of paid lobbyists to be listed along with the bill, so we know who's paying for our Congresscritters? I heard a reference to this today, but am having trouble digging up a news story on it at the moment.

Anyway, if I'm reading this gobbledygook right, this appears to do exactly zip to restrict our speech on RF, as there's no "pay" involved and we're not lobbying anyone.

If this is the case, the reporting on this site ranks right up their with their other "scoop" about how too much soy can make you gay. :biglaugh:

 

[standing_alone]

Now of course, to an ordinary citizen, this bill is extremely difficult to understand. Being an ordinary citizen, it's taken me a couple of times reading it and I still am not sure how well I understand it, if I even do. However, I see no reason to believe an internet forum would be affected by this (proposed) law.

Section 220, first of all, appears to address grassroots lobbying, which they defined as:

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.

Since when a citizen posts on an internet forum, he/she is not expressing his/her view to a Federal official, but merely discussing amongst fellow citizens, I don't see how an internet forum would fit under this definition of grassroots lobbying without being "liberal" with the definition. Now, it also mentions attempts to encourage the public to contact Federal officials. Firstly, I rarely see such happening on forums, at least on this one. Secondly, the purpose of the forum is not to lobby in any way, but merely to be a place for discussion.

Now, it's a pretty damn good chance I'm totally misunderstanding what this bill says, but on what I understand from reading that first bit of Section 220, I see no reason to believe that internet forums would be affected by this. Perhaps someone more astute in the area of legislation could correct any misunderstandings I may have.

 

[ChrisP]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53813

^^^Read^^^

Ok, so correct if I'm wrong, but this new legislation, if passed, would apply to anyone who talks politics on a forum that over 500 people have access to...that means Religious Forums, right? And not only politics, but things that also pertain to religion somewhat, like gay marriage and abortion...IS THIS INSANE OR WHAT?!?!?!

Don't read that bloody hype.

1 I live in NZ so your administration can take that, turn it sideways and forcibly insert it in their left nostril.

2. It applies ONLY IF YOU'RE MAKING MONEY FROM YOUR POSTS.

3. I think it only applies to Bloggers but correct me if I'm wrong there.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

*looks up from counting her money*

You mean no one else is making money from their posts?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Hitler passed a similar law
It worked very well.

With this law in place congress can do what it likes with out public criticism and bring in even more stringent laws..

 

[Booko]

*looks up from counting her money*

You mean no one else is making money from their posts?

Shhh! You're not supposed to tell people they can trade in their frubals for C-notes!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's also just proposed. Thier have been many laws, including one that would have made military service mandatory in the United States, that are never passed. If it is passed, it will probably have a case in the supreme court, since the First Amendment specifically states the citizens have the right to peacefully assemble and protest the government.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

I'm not surprised. When you have one party, in this case the Republicans...

Now, before I read the actual text of the bill (yes I'm skeptical of WND's interpretation of it), I must point out that this statement is in error. The DEMOCRATS not the Republicans, are the one party now in control of our Senate and House of Representatives.

OK...starting reading it, and that was quick. When WND says "Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress, as lobbyists are required.", they are misinterpreting the section of the proposed bill that exempts people and organizations that are 'speaking' to less than 500.

Now, I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the internet , but I don't see any language in the bill that would require groups that are NOT engaged in fund raising to support grassroots efforts to fall under its purview. I also don't see how this is going to favor or hinder one party over the other.

For anyone who is interersted, here's a link to the entire text of the proposed bill.

Perhaps someone who sees this as a major threat to free speech could read S.1 in its entirety and elaborate which sections apply to RF.

 

[ChrisP]

Comments I see on other sites seem to come from people who think that the Democrats have proposed this law to help stamp out money gathering for the Plebublicans

 

[Booko]

Now, I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the internet , but I don't see any language in the bill that would require groups that are NOT engaged in fund raising to support grassroots efforts to fall under its purview. I also don't see how this is going to favor or hinder one party over the other.

Thanks, CX. That was my non-lawyer reading of it as well.

Did you hear a news story about how there was some proposed law that would require a sort of "truth in labelling" for bills that were either being pushed by or flat out written by lobbyists? I was wondering if this was the bill they were talking about.

Perhaps someone who sees this as a major threat to free speech could read S.1 in its entirety and elaborate which sections apply to RF.

Maybe if we send Doppleganger a cupcake he'll weigh in? He's used to this gobbledygook.