Proposed Law Affects Everyone and is Very Dangerous
By Sara Pentz
It is chilling to think that only by the smallest number of votes we the people almost lost our freedom of speech on Thursday, January 18, 2007, by an edict nearly passed on the floor of that so-called august Chamber called the United Stated Senate in
On that day the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, S. 1, a lobbying reform bill went before the Senate for a vote. Included in S. 1, was provision Section 220* that sought to establish, for the first time, federal regulation that would require grassroots causes and activity to register and report quarterly to Congress––or “be fined $300,000 or jailed.”
The major sponsor of the bill was Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). The bill was co-sponsored by five Republicans and 12 Democrats.
Section 220 defined a “grassroots cause” as anything or entity that attempts to influence the general public by contacting legislators or asking members of the public to contact their legislators.
S. 1 was allegedly written in order to change the rules for lobbyists and members of Congress. The purpose was to stop graft and corruption by those who were in the business of influence peddling, so the bill’s authors and advocates said. The S. 1 bill bans all gifts from lobbyists, imposes restrictions on trips and accommodation offered to elected officials, and requires all "earmarks" to be identified in spending bills
If the 220 section of S. 1 had become law, which it did not (by the hair on your chinny chin chin), disclosure and reporting requirements for lobbyists would have been extended to groups who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters. In effect, bloggers, et al., would have been considered lobbyists––lumped into the same category as
So what? Who cares, you say? Well, you had better care because if S.1, 220, had passed, you would not have been allowed to advocate any cause––in any form whatsoever in a magazine, newspaper, blog, email, letter, conference call or any other form of mass communication if more than 500 people were to read it––without reporting to Congress on your activities.
“Section 220 would (have) amend(ed) the existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself,” according to GrassrootsFreedom.com chairman Richard Viguerie. If 220 had passed, explains Viguerie, "We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy."
Viguerie does not exaggerate. But he also does not make it clear exactly what it is about 220 that would have destroyed our freedom of speech. Buried in 220 is section (17), which clearly states that no person can communicate their views to federal officials or the general public if they are advocating any particular thought.
This slick little paragraph is the kicker that could have silenced any and all individuals, because it clearly defines this kind of communications as grassroots lobbying. Your thoughts and ideas would have been censored at the whim of any bureaucrat or any citizen who chose to oppose you.
Look carefully so that you don’t miss the meaning of (17):
`(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 paragraph, in effect, can be used by anyone against anyone else to claim that by their words they have broken the law defined in this section (17). Hear me clearly. This section could have prohibited your freedom of speech. Its purpose is to stop you from communicating ideas that your government finds offensive to them or to any other person in the general population––on the basis that those words would be defined as lobbying.
220 (17) was a blatant attempt by its authors and many members of congress to silence criticism of government. With its passage I would not have been allowed to publish this article (as a blog) except for my own pleasure because I would be labeled a grassroots lobbyist. I could not have had my article printed in any form that would reach more than 500 people because I would have been considered an advocate of a certain position wishing to influence people to take action.
You say: ‘You go too far, Sara.’ No, I don’t. Because Section 220 would have required me to detail my expenditures, discuss the issues I advocate, and enumerate the members of Congress and other federal officials who are targeted by my article. It would have tied me up in bureaucratic red tape so intricate that I would never have been able to extricate myself. And, I certainly would never have had time to devote to writing my so-called ‘offensive’ ideas that anyone chose to dispute––or decided to call lobbying. In effect, the red tape bureaucracy of 220 would have ‘blocked’ my freedom of speech.
A separate report would have been required for each policy issue that I wrote about or advocated. If I failed to complete each of the required actions of 220, I would have suffered severe civil and potentially criminal penalties. That is, if I failed to register, report or omitted some required information in my reports, I might be jailed.
The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, S. 1, 220, section (17) would have been a silent threat that would hang over my head like the sword of Damocles.
The purpose of 220 (17) was not to make sure that I did not pay any government official some amount of money to sway his thinking or vote. It was, instead, clearly written to stop anyone––from any end of the political spectrum––from swaying (meaning disagreeing) a government official or anyone who had the power to write or shape the laws of the land.
Now it’s time to remind you, dear reader, who sponsored this bill.
Co-sponsors of S. 1, Section 220, included Senator Robert F. Bennett (R-UT), Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Senator Susan M. Collins (R-ME), Sensatory Richard Durbin (R-IL]), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, (D-NJ), Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), Senator Mitch McConnell [R-KY], Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Senator Jim Webb (D-VA).
In fact, 220 was finally ‘defeated’ at the last minute when an amendment to S. 1 removed the controversial section from the bill. The vote in favor of the removal amendment was 55 to 43. Had eight Senators decided not to vote against this terrible amendment, 220 would have passed. The consequences would have been disastrous.
S.1 was passed without the inclusion of Section 220––only at the last minute on the day of the vote––when literally hundreds of organizations from all sides of the political spectrum saw the enormous implications and repercussions of such a bill. They understood that such a federal governmental regulation would have slapped a muzzle on freedom of speech.
With the explosion of Internet communications government officials have found themselves critiqued in ways they have not had to deal with from the mainstream press. Bloggers have held senators and bureaucrats up to transparent light, analyzing, exposing, contradicting and challenging misrepresentations left unprocessed by mainstream media stars.
Beware of anyone who wants to strike a blow at the Internet whether it’s through taxes or regulations like 220. Watch out particularly for those who will surely come along in the next years to attack the concept of ‘net neutrality’–––which stands for equal access to the Internet.
Look deeply for their motives. They won’t stand out on the surface of any legislation. And they won’t be benevolent. They will be buried in the cavernous rhetoric of garbled bureaucratic legalize which may sound on the surface like a benign proposition. It will not be so, in the same way that S., 220, section (17) was potentially an evil weapon against the freedom of speech and expression.
* 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.'.
** Co-sponsors of S. 1, Section 220, included Senator Robert F. Bennett (R-UT), Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Senator Maria Cantwell, Maria (D-WA), Senator Susan M. Collins (R-ME), Sensator Richard Durbin (R-IL]), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, (D-NJ), Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), Senator Mitch McConnell [R-KY], Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Senator Jim Webb (D-VA).
