Slashdot Log In
The Grassroots Blogging Provision's Real Purpose
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jan 23, 2007 09:44 AM
from the been-had dept.
from the been-had dept.
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.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
This is, of course, The Register? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hooray for "editors"! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
right... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.)
astroturfing (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
So, in list form: (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
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.
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.
Re: (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
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?).
Parent
Re: (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.
Re:throwing the baby out with the bathwater (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm sorry, but I wasn't taken in... (Score:4, Insightful)
-Lars
Parent