.

These damn bills are one of the reasons lovers of freedom dread every hour that the legislature (be it U.S. or State) is in session.  The legislature is always thinking up new ways to tax or control the citizenry and much less infrequently about undoing their mischief.

On January 4th, 2007, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced his, “A bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process” (gawd, how I love their BS names) AKA “Ethics Bill”.  Some parts of it were good but there is (was) a particularly egregious section tucked away in the middle of the bill.  I’m sure Reid et. al. were hoping no one would notice.  Yet fortunately someone did and alerted the people…but I’m getting ahead of the story.  What follows is the text of Section 220 of U.S. Senate Bill 1, how it would have stripped you of your 1st amendment rights and what was done about it.

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.’.

How S.1 Section 220 would have stripped you of your 1st amendment rights

Succinctly, Section 220 would have required U.S. political bloggers with over 500 readers to register as lobbyists or face criminal penalties of up to one year in jail.  It would have also required grassroots causes, many operating on a shoe string as it is, to register and report quarterly to Congress, as lobbyists are required.  Obviously the intent of Section 220 was to stiffle informing the people of pending legislation.  “Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever,” Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com said.

What was interesting about the people’s response to Section 220 was that apparently first the pro-life movement picked it up then more conservatives and pro-gun individuals got the word then even the pro-choice and ACLU people got on the band wagon.  Section 220 was egregious enough to bring together everyone from across the spectrum of political beliefs.  It was good to see us all work together to get this section removed.

How S.1 Section 220 was removed

U.S. Senator Bennett (R-UT) offered an amendment to S.1 which would strike Section 220 from the bill.  Of course Bennett’s amendment offered the relief the people were looking for and the Senators were then contacted by their constituents in enough numbers to get their attention.  On Thursday evening (1/18/07), a vote was held on the Bennett amendment and it passed with unanimous support from the Republicans and seven Democrats.

Is it not ever so telling that the party that just comes into power again and huffs and puffs about doing the people’s business, votes overwhelmingly FOR RETAINING SECTION 220 which is explicitly AGAINST THE PEOPLE’S BUSINESS?  In my opinion, those Democrats which voted against Bennett’s amendment are the biggest liars and hypocrites imaginable.  The supposed party of the people voted against the people.  Damn them.

With Section 220 removed, the ‘Ethics Bill’ (S.1) passed the Senate by a vote of 96-2 (Senator Hatch (R-UT) and Senator Coburn (R-OK) voted against the bill).  It now goes to the House.  So even though we’ve won a battle it remains to be seen if the Section 220 language can be kept out of the compromise version.

Summing Up

Please contact Senator Bennett (particularly if you live in Utah) and thank him for his amendment.  Heaven knows he hears enough ‘do this’ and ‘why didn’t you do that’ from me, so I faxed him a heart felt ‘Thank You Senator!’

As stated above, all Republicans voted for the removal of Section 220 as did seven Democrats.  The seven Democrats who should also be thanked are:

Senator Baucus (D-MT)
Senator Bayh (D-IN)
Senator Conrad (D-ND)
Senator Dorgan (D-ND)
Senator Landrieu (D-LA)
Senator Nelson (D-NE)
Senator Salazar (D-CO)

Then while you’re at it, tell those 43 Democrat Senators who would take us down the road of more government regulation and more restrictions on our right of free speech, what you think of their hypocracy.  The 43  are:

Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)      

 So much for Obama listening to the people.  He’s a joke.  But that’s another post.

This article is copyright © 2007, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. Gary Shumway is author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.