Dingy Harry: “I hate the 1st Amendment.”
If Harry Reid wasn’t enough of a joke as it is, here is the Democrat’s latest foray into limiting free speech:
HARRY REID INTRODUCES BILL TO REGISTER BLOGGERS? Hmm.
And from that link:
S.1 has been introduced in the Senate as “lobbying reform” — which in this case means “First Amendment infringements.” An amendment has been attached, which requires registration of bloggers with more than 500 readers, and who comment on policy issues. Violation would be a criminal offense.
And from that link:
Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently 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 the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend 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.
The bill would require reporting of ‘paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,’ but defines ‘paid’ merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.
Contact your senators today!
Of course, by urging grassroots action, all-encompassingly will have to register with Congress if the law passes.
All this thanks to our dingy friend, Harry Reid.
Update: I called the offices of both my senators. Ben Cardin’s people say they aren’t sure how he feels and he has “no official position” about S. 1 or Section 220. The second gentleman I spoke to said that the bill is “just about transparency”, about “how the money is spent.” In the office of Senator Mikulski I spoke to a woman who said that “the senator was in favor of the bill but is wavering now…there are parts she doesn’t like.”
Update II: Tiffany was right, this is probably much ado about nothing, check Prof. Bainbridge’s analysis.
4 Responses to “Dingy Harry: “I hate the 1st Amendment.””
Leave a Reply
note: by commenting, you indicate that you have read and accept all-encompassingly's comment policy. please print it and keep a copy of the document in your wall safe along with your living will or advance directive.
I’m not trying to argue, but I would like to understand this. I went to Thomas.gov and read S.1 section 220. This section applies to paid grassroots efforts. I certainly am not an expert at reading this type of language, but to me it sounded like it only applies to grassroots firms that “receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period” (19 B). Any grassroots efforts falling under this category would have to register, unless they are trying to influence less than 500 people (18 B). So to me, this sounds like a blogger would have to target at least 500 people and be paid at least $25,000 during a quarter to even fall under this provision. They could still do it; they would just have to register. Am I totally off? If so, what did I miss? It seems to me like it will hardly influence bloggers at all.
I hope you’re right! (and I think that you are…but…)
The definitions in the law are fuzzy, which is where some of the problem is.
Here is what the ACLU said:
If we sent out an email to 500 people, would we have to register too? Given what you brought up, Tiffany, I don’t think we would…but I’m not totally sure. And I don’t like it one bit.
Here is one the bloggers I linked to, and his response:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/01/register_blogge.php#c5218
Thanks for making the update. Soon you will realize that if Tiffany bothers to comment she is probably right!