The Grassroots Blogging Provision's Real Purpose

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.

right...

[moerty]

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."

Re:throwing the baby out with the bathwater

[Goaway]

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.

Tarnished Backroom

[Anonymous Coward]

The liberals have plenty of dirty backroom boys. Don't expect to read about them in the liberal media though.

Re:Hooray for "editors"!

[Krow10]

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

Re:Biased summary

[gb506]

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.

Re:Bad summary

[branonm]

Astroturf campaigns are not free speech. They are more akin to advertising.

If you are PAID to express an opinion then how can the speech be free?

Re:Hooray for "editors"!

[shadowbearer]

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