The Grassroots Blogging Provision's Real Purpose 227
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.
Hooray for "editors"! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:This is, of course, The Register? (Score:1, Insightful)
Biased summary (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you're saying that liberal causes haven't figured out how to use the mail box yet?
Re:Hooray for "editors"! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:This is, of course, The Register? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear /.: You owe your readers an apology (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Yeah... (Score:2, Insightful)
astroturfing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Biased summary (Score:5, Insightful)
"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:right... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 you have to do is write 10 words of your own bias-ridden shit every other story to keep it ticking over.
Re:Biased summary (Score:3, Insightful)
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. It's much easier to simply stop trying to engage in advocacy.
At the end of the day this was an attempt by government to limit the amount of communication they get from the unwashed masses. And to that effort I say, Fuck You Very Much, thank you.
Only a fool would expect less from a bunch of (Score:1, Insightful)
The sad part is not so much that it worked, but that the same crowd buys into every pop-sci, nuclear power is bad, we're destroying the planet, your immogrant nighbour is eatint the neighborhood pets, child abductions and school killings are rampat, terrorists are really nice prople who don't like me because they thik I'm not sensitive to their culture, cuttlefish are smarter than dolphins are smarter than dogs are more deserving of life than humans, Al Sharpton is NOT a racist who instigated the killing of 8 people in Harlem, and thimblefull of other crap that makes them feel good, important, superior, or might get them some nookie.
Re:F$%^ing idiots know jack about the law, apparen (Score:2, Insightful)
But then again, I'm just an amateur. I'm not a lawyer like Gonzales who can read a sentence that says "No" and interpret it to mean "Yes." I guess I'm just not educated enough to understand what the Constitution really means. Maybe you have to look at it with a blacklight or read it upside down to understand it.
Doesn't matter what the purpose was (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Paid for speach is NOT free speach (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
It might be interesting to look back... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad summary (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I'm sorry, but I wasn't taken in... (Score:2, Insightful)
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. Political advocacy for minority causes is generally not big business. Especially when said minority opinions are held by the poor or politically disenfranchised.
Furthermore, this legislation would remove the ability of politically influential bloggers and organizations to remain anonymous. It would provide a nice "tool" for an oppressive regime to eliminate dissent. Our Constitutional Rights are important, even if the average blogger is not affected! It's a matter of principlel, one I would expect the /. crowd to understand, considering all of the harping they do about Constitutional liberties.
Organizations like the FSF, EFF, and FIRE would probably be considerably affected by this legislation.
Free speech for me, not for you. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm sorry, but I wasn't taken in... (Score:4, Insightful)
-Lars
Re:Hooray for "editors"! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hooray for "editors"! (Score:3, Insightful)
Groupthink on both sides (Score:3, Insightful)
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" would have had to register as a lobbyist, and be subject to lobbying regulations, even if they have no direct contact with public officials. That's a heavy-handed way of dealing with the problem, and I think that it could even run afoul of the first amendment. So given the flawed nature of Sec 220, people on both sides had a point. In its proposed form, though, I'm glad the section was rejected.
Re:This is, of course, The Register? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad summary (Score:3, Insightful)
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 want to know the affiliation of the author. When I read a blog, I would like to know in case this blogger is getting paid 100,000$ to promote his opinion while trying to make it look like a private blog. This has nothing to do with preventing free speech, just with making free speech work.
Re:Paid for speach is NOT free speach (Score:3, Insightful)