Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Grassroots Blogging Provision's Real Purpose

Posted by Zonk on Tue Jan 23, 2007 08:44 AM
from the been-had dept.
The Almighty Buck Government United States Politics
ICantFindADecentNick writes "The Register carries a report on the defeat of Section 220 of the reform bill (the grassroots provision). In an all-too-familiar scene, bloggers, Slashdot readers and several news outlets were taken in by the hype surrounding a provision in the Senate ethics reform bill that would have required grassroots lobbying firms to register with the US Congress. To be fair, some commenters did see through the deception but the campaign, organized by Richard Viguerie, still succeeded. From the article: 'Viguerie, for those not familiar with the tarnished panoply of backroom players in American politics, pioneered the use of direct mail techniques for conservative causes, and has been called the "funding father" of the modern conservative movement. His ad agency currently handles direct mail campaigns for non-profits seeking to stimulate grassroots activity or raise funds from the general public.'" This is, of course, The Register. Still interesting to look back at the news from another point of view.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Political Bloggers May Be Forced to Register 658 comments
Thebes writes "Under Senate Bill S.1, political bloggers with a readership of over 500 who comment on policy matters or hope to incite 'grassroots' action amongst their readers would be forced to register with the Federal Government as lobbyists."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

The Grassroots Blogging Provision's Real Purpose 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • This is, of course, The Register? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mingot (665080) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:50AM (#17722700)
    Only a bastion of fine news reporting like slashdot can say something like this without sounding pretentious.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gumbi west (610122)
      yeah, I don't understand. I guess he's saying that, "We went for it hook line and sinker and they did the equivalent of RTFA and now know what it really says, but I still think there not very good at reporting." Or is it supposed to mean something else?
    • This is, of course, Zonk

      This is, of course, quokkapox

      Wait, what? Who am I?

      Stack overflow, too many avatars.

  • Hooray for "editors"! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Goaway (82658) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:51AM (#17722708) Homepage
    "Look back"?

    People were screaming about the whole thing being a complete fabrication each time it was posted on Slashdot. You could have just, you know, read the comments?

    • Re:Hooray for "editors"! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bockelboy (824282) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:59AM (#17722802)
      I was screaming that it was a fabrication last time it was on Slashdot, but that didn't stop twice as many people from posting that I was completely wrong.

      It only takes a bit of blood to turn it into a free-speech orgy, even if the law was well-within the limits of free speech as the Supreme Court has put into place.

      Just for reference, political statements (i.e., burning the flag, ranting on your blog) are heavily shielded by the First Amendment. Political statements paid for by a campaign to get someone elected are NOT heavily shielded by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld that fact again and again.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by geoffspear (692508)
          Who exactly were the Federalist Papers trying to get elected again?

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Krow10 (228527)

            Who exactly were the Federalist Papers trying to get elected again?

            Not a who, but the Federalist Papers [foundingfathers.info] were written to influence people to support the Constitution. Likewise, the Antifederalist Papers [wepin.com] were written to influence people to oppose the Constitution. They were written anonymously, under the pseudonym "Publius" for the Federalist Papers and "A Farmer" and "An Observer" among others for the Antifederalist Papers, though some of the Antifederalist Papers were attributed.

            Cheers,
            Craig

        • In the initial discussion I made the point that any censorship is bad censorship, and I stand by that. A lot of people seem to feel that they got "taken" by political gaming, but disliking paid grassroots campaigns doesn't justify censorship. Don't be confused by where parties have drawn up their battle lines. Think for yourself.

          From my original post:

          Unopposed distribution of political speech, including the distribution of political pamphlets, has always been legal. At the very least, this law will

          • Re:Hooray for "editors"! (Score:4, Insightful)

            by falsified (638041) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @11:19AM (#17724360)
            Where's the censorship? Registering as a lobbyist sure as HELL doesn't restrict access or speech. All it does is label you as what you are. That's like saying states that ask for party identification when you register to vote are keeping you from voting.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by nasch (598556)
                I have no love for political lobbyists, but the only way to have free speech is to have free speech; saying 'some kinds of speech are more equal than others' is absurd.
                Personally, I'm very glad we have different kinds of speech. I'm glad companies aren't allowed to lie to me in their ads or packaging, for example.

                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by shadowbearer (554144)
                  Advertising/packaging != free speech

                    you're comparing apples and oranges there

                    (of course companies DO lie in their advertising and packaging quite often, just in ways that aren't easily discernible)

                    SB

  • right... (Score:5, Informative)

    by moerty (1030150) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:54AM (#17722736)
    This is, of course, The Register. Still interesting to look back at the news from another point of view. submitter makes it seem almost wistful that he and a bunch of other tards were taken in hook line and sinker when all they had to do was read and see what was really going on. it also makes me wonder how many posters here are paid shills of a misinformation campaign although as they say, "don't attribute to malice what is perfectably explainable by stupidity."
    • next week we'll be reading a story about how the story about how the other story was crap was crap :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "it also makes me wonder how many posters here are paid shills of a misinformation campaign"

      Well, those are exactly the people this bill would have regulated, so it seems pretty likely that they do exist (here and on most large forums).

      A lot of Americans have been living in a fantasy world lately, where the rich and powerful are there to do good and benevolently oversee us plebes. If they open their eyes, though, they'll see commercial databanks whose sole purpose is to spy on us and sell whatever is disco
    • submitter makes it seem almost wistful that he and a bunch of other tards were taken in hook line and sinker when all they had to do was read and see what was really going on.

      'tards'?

      Yes, obviously they lack your intelligence and discernment ...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Just to qualify, if you managed to trawl through that mangled shitfest that the parent calls the English language, he actually makes a good point.

      Slashdot is hardly in a position to put on a haughty tone and shout "Oh, well, this is The Register", when their own reporting is based on whatever rabid drivelling the latest basement-bound, freedom-clinging, frothing, mouth-breathing Linux zealot submits to the editors. They're too stupid to fucking notice anyway. It's nice and easy to run a news site when all y

    • Re:right... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:50AM (#17723334)
      Yes. I was actually in a position in which I was quoting and citing large sections of the bill, only to have people dispute that that was what the bill said, despite my source being the Library of Congress. Some stupid astroturfer's press release was given as large, if not larger, a sway as THE ACTUAL BILL.
        • Posting bill text might not have been as useful as you think, unless it went along with a pretty detailed analysis, because there was a lot of interaction between different sections.

          As for groupthink, that was happening on both sides, and still is (except now the default direction of the groupthink is reversed). Section 220 had a problem in it, which The Register article mentions. That problem is exactly what was bugging me about the bill: that anyone paid enough to do "stimulation of grassroots lobbying"
  • "pioneered the use of direct mail techniques for conservative causes"

    So, you're saying that liberal causes haven't figured out how to use the mail box yet?
    • Judging by the amount of Republican junk I had in my mailbox I had last fall, I would say no. And thank the gods they haven't.

    • Re:Biased summary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zootm (850416) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:20AM (#17723008)

      "Pioneered" would generally tend to mean "they started it". It doesn't say anything about their opposition not doing the same thing (in fact, I think it implies that they followed?).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gb506 (738638)
      So, you're saying that liberal causes haven't figured out how to use the mail box yet?

      Excellent observation. The provision as it was written would have barred companies from encouraging or providing mechanisms for their customers to contact legislators regarding issues of import - unless, of course, said company "registered" with the government and reported all activities and expenditures. And that is a massive free speech problem. Nobody wants to construct a reporting mechanism, legislators know that.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by gb506 (738638)
          Company != evil. My employer is an organic foods company. We try to get our consumers to advocate higher food safety regs, better environmental oversight, family farm freindly legislation, etc. These are not evil deeds. But the provision discussed here would have prevented us from communicating with our consumers about these issues unless we had the government giving us a quarterly anal probe. No thanks.

  • Shouldn't we get an apology from the /. "editors", since they swallowed Vigurie's spin hook line and sinker -- not once, but twice?

    (Of course, since they apparently don't read the comments, where many people pointed out the truth on this issue, I expect the answer is probably no.)

  • Oh, it's all good then (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Since the provision was designed to silence some conservative grassroots guy, it must be okay. Surely there wouldn't be any unintended consequences.

  • Yeah... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fitten (521191)
    Yeah... whoever heard of a Slashdot reader not RTFA and jumping at whatever conclusions are presented in the blurb.... I must be new here.

  • astroturfing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Johnny5000 (451029) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:16AM (#17722952) Homepage Journal
    Kinda funny that the bill to try to prevent astroturfing was defeated largely by astroturfing.

    • It might be interesting to look back... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MarkusQ (450076) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:02AM (#17723492) Journal

      It might be interesting to look back at those threads and see if we could figure out who the astroturfers are.

      I've also thought, more ambitiously, that it might be interesting to see if there were discernible patterns to postings by astroturfers, or to threads on which this was happening. I'm not sure what exactly to look for (especially since we don't have access to the IP addresses), but their still might be some pattern of boiler plate text, or things block copied from other sites, or...

      Ideas?

      --MarkusQ

  • So, in list form: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wilson_6500 (896824) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:24AM (#17723070)
    1) Senate proposes bill. Bill contains provisions that businesses will probably not like, but Senate feels pressure to do so from the public (?).

    2) Influential conservative stirs up "public opinion" against bill's provisions.

    3) Bill's provision is struck. Senate cites "will of the people" and shrugs. Senate gets to say "we tried, you didn't want it." Businesses keep astroturing. Everyone wins except the public who, as always, loses.

    Just how often are the provisions of bills being discussed in Congress truly struck out because the people got wind of what was going on and spoke out--without some mouthpiece or rein-holding group to speak "for" us, or some vague poll number or other inaccurate metric telling the Congressfolks what we think, or some massive letter-writing campaign by just 2000 very angry people?
    • Heh, you want Congress to govern based on what the people think? There are some real mouth-breathers around here, I'd hate to see what a country run by those would look like. Look, a republican government run in the manner you suggest would be mob rule by proxy.

      The people need to be listened to less, not more. Abortion, gay marriage, all those rights issues need to be moved to the state level and out of federal politics forever, but 'people' continue getting into the process and trying to impose their will
      • The people need to be listened to less, not more. Abortion, gay marriage, all those rights issues need to be moved to the state level and out of federal politics forever,

        So people magically become smarter when dealing with state politics, and they're morons when it comes to federal politics?

        Based on the rest of your post, I would think you'd be in favor of more power consolidated in the national government- say in the hands of a king. Then we wouldn't have to deal with the opinions of the "mouth breathers"

  • Doesn't matter what the purpose was (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mobby_6kl (668092) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:41AM (#17723264)
    It's still retarded. From TFA:
    Because of clumsy wording that would have included an employer in the definition of a "client," the requirement would have applied to anyone who, in the service of their employer, engaged in the stimulation of grassroots lobbying designed to influence more than 500 people, as long as the organization spent over $25,000 per quarter on the activity. Thus, anyone who was paid $25,000 per quarter to maintain a weblog with a readership of more than 500 people would have to register with Congress under section 220 if they spent all of their time encouraging the general public to contact an executive or legislative official over a matter of public policy.


    Ignoring the issue with the readership, what would the registration accomplish anyway? You can already see who contributes to the politicans' campaigns, and that doesn't seem to do change anything.

    • Ignoring the issue with the readership, what would the registration accomplish anyway? You can already see who contributes to the politicans' campaigns, and that doesn't seem to do change anything.

      With registration, when Exxon hires a PR firm to create "Dr. Brown's Global Warming Truth Blog" and spread some manure about it being caused by cows, they would have to fess up about the fact that it was a work done for hire. Without registration, there's no way to know that "Dr. Brown" the world famous clima

  • Just because Richard Viguerie wants it out for selfish reasons doesn't mean the law itself is a good idea. Astroturfing is annoying, but there's a lot more to lose than gain by regulating political speech like this.

  • Bad summary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath (38547) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:24AM (#17723802)
    The bill would have infringed the right of free speech. It's actually quite clear.

    Astroturf campaigns are free speech. Fining groups engaged in astroturf campaigns is an infringement on free speech. Requiring speakers to "register" in order to be allowed to speak is not free speech.

    All this BS justification is simply "we're in favor of free-speech only when we agree with the motives, methods, or message of the speaker". Agreeable speech doesn't need to be protected from the people who agree with it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by greppling (601175)
      What a non-sense. Under the bill, you would still be completely free to voice your opinion. Except that you would have to admit publically IF you are getting paid to promote this opinion. You could still use your free speech, except that your readers would know that you are getting paid for it, and it would be in their judgment whether they continue to trust you.

      When I read a newspaper, I want to know who is running it. When I see an election ad, I want to know who is paying for it. When I read an op-ed, I

  • It is my honest opinion that this was bad legislation. Yes, I know most blogger wouldn't be affected, but organizations like the EFF would have been.

    For a non-profit organization, even small expenses can make or break the efforts of the organization. There are a lot of non-profit organizations that have only a handfull of staff, yet influence thousands or millions of people. Groups like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood - which are generally well funded - are the exception, rather than the rule. Polit

    • Jeez, calm down. It was simply a law requiring paid political astroturfers to register with Congress, just like the K Street lobbyists have to already. Being registered as a lobbyist doesn't seem to have slowed Jack Abromoff down any.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Yeah, I can understand how Gonzales was confused that where the Constitution said that "the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended..." meant that it could be suspended anytime he felt like it. But what I don't understand is how you think that where the Constitutions says "Congress shall make no law..." means that Congress can make any law on speech or that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the State
      • Being registered as a lobbyist doesn't seem to have slowed Jack Abromoff down any.

        Then what good would this law do?

    • Re:throwing the baby out with the bathwater (Score:5, Informative)

      by Goaway (82658) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:20AM (#17723010) Homepage
      It's claiming that it's a good idea to have astroturfing paid political shills register, which was what the bill was about. Apparently you are missing the part where all the reporting on the bill was complete fabrications and had very little to do with the reality of what it covered.
      • Anytime you can limit free speech, you have done a good thing. /sarcasm
        • Why do you support the "free speech" of paid political lobbyists? Again, it was just requiring registration - in other words admitting you're a political shill.
    • Being /. it's claiming that it was a good provision because it was not really about targeting free speech, but rather about targeting a "tarnished" "backroom" "conservative." That being the goal, anything goes.

    • Paid for speach is NOT free speach (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tinkerghost (944862) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:50AM (#17723346) Homepage

      No, you don't have to register to have a personal opinion, or to voice it in public. The bill was worded very specifically to make sure that only if you were paid to have an opinion (and only if you reached more than 500ppl), would you then have to register - just like if you are paid to have an opinion & print something in a magazine, in a newspaper, etc - all of those paid for by notices on the bottom of the TV adds - that's what it was about.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SQL Error (16383)
        Baloney.
        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
        It doesn't say "unless it's been paid for". It says "Congress shall make no law".

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's a follow up to a previous article [slashdot.org]. It corrects that article's mistatement of the facts of the legislative provisions to prevent paid-lobbyists ($25,000 or more in one quarter of a year and a specific client) from using "blogging" as a loophole in the lobbyist reporting rules. The previous article pretended the legislation the Republicans all voted against would have hindered all bloggers. In fact, as this "correction [slashdot.org] states, the Republicans all voted to prevent proper reporting of paid-for lobbying

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.