Potential New Senate Bill - Disgusting

[a7x1337]

"The U.S. Senate is poised to consider a bill that could keep you from finding out what the politicians are doing in Washington, D.C.

The very first bill introduced in the Senate by the new Democrat majority aims to clean up recent lobbying scandals that have plagued the halls of our government. While most of the bill is good, it contains a provision, Section 220, which will severely limit your ability to stay abreast of the important issues facing our country – harming the ability of organizations such as Focus on the Family Action to share that information with you.

If this horrible new bill passes communications from Focus Action, known as "grassroots communications," will be tied up in miles of new red tape. These bureaucratic restrictions are unconscionable, and failure to comply could result in $100,000 fines.

It's clear that this is a concerted effort to silence the voice of Americans by making it harder for you to know what's happening. At the same time, Section 220 will create a loophole for labor unions, trade associations and foreign corporations."

this, imo, is worse than ANYTHING bush has done.
it's clearly an attempt to shoot down right-wing talk radio and similar things by the liberal senate.

[Nocturnal]

Hmm, well with zero information I can only hazard a guess.

If Focus on the Family is against it, then I'm for it.


Research to follow, but real quick. Worse? If this is true (which I doubt it's being presented accurately) how is this worse than legal torture, illegal wiretaps etc.?


Did a little digging, this section simply requires that groups report their status as "grass roots" organizations to Congress if they participate in politcal activism. The problem here seems less about harming the small groups, and more about exposing one of the larger loopholes that the big lobbyists take advantage of.

[a7x1337]

Hmm, well with zero information I can only hazard a guess.

If Focus on the Family is against it, then I'm for it.
you realize this is a blatant attack on the constitution? if you disagree with what bush is doing with the mail and phones, by God, you should certainly be against this

[Nocturnal]

you realize this is a blatant attack on the constitution? if you disagree with what bush is doing with the mail and phones, by God, you should certainly be against this

You must be reading something that I'm not seeing here. How are you figuring that this bill allows congress to hide it's activities. It doesn't even directly involve congress. It is just a regulatory requirement on small political orgs.

[SmoothKnight]

in comunist america, disgust bills you!

[slapnpopbass]

Wow, that does kind of suck. If it is what a7x1337 says it is, then I dunno I'd want to vote in a Congressional election. What would be the point if we didn't know what they are doing??

[rand0m]

Since when has not having drug experience been a good thing?

[Ace Hippie]

Here's what section 220 really says;

SEC. 220. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING.

(a) Definitions- Section 3 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'; and

(2) by adding at the end of the following:

`(17) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same.

`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.

`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.

`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--

`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;

`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;

`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;

`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or

`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.

`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--

`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and

`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.

(b) Registration- Section 4(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)) is amended--

(1) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3)(A), by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii), the term `lobbying activities' shall not include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'.

(c) Separate Itemization of Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying- Section 5(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (3), by--

(A) inserting after `total amount of all income' the following: `(including a separate good faith estimate of the total amount of income relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and

(B) inserting `or a grassroots lobbying firm' after `lobbying firm';

(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting after `total expenses' the following: `(including a good faith estimate of the total amount of expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that total amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not apply with respect to reports relating to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying activities.'.

(d) Good Faith Estimates and De Minimis Rules for Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5(c) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(c)) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Estimates of Income or Expenses- For purposes of this section, the following shall apply:

`(1) Estimates of income or expenses shall be made as follows:

`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $10,0000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.

`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $10,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $10,000 for the reporting period.

`(2) Estimates of income or expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying shall be made as follows:

`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $25,000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.

`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $25,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $25,000 for the reporting period.'.

(2) TAX REPORTING- Section 15 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1610) is amended--

(A) in subsection (a)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'; and

(B) in subsection (b)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'.

It's basically setting limits on using 'grassroots organizations' as lobbying firms, which is a tactic used by basically everyone to get around current laws on the subject. It "keeps you from knowing what's going on" in the sense that it limits the power/strength of these organizations. It has little or nothing to do (directly) with making what goes on any more or less secretive, despite what the initial post says.

[mrredrocker]

If Focus on the Family is against it, then I'm for it.



"If <insert name of any left-leaning organization> is against it, then I'm for it."

Closeminded, yet it's the basic equivalent of what you said. Nice.

[MooCowzRock]

How about a compromise?

The Republicans will be fine with this decision, so long as Democrats stop whining about the wiretapping...

Both are pushing the constitution, but both have good intentions, and will very likely help more than hurt.

[Spike Lee]

Basically you guys are taking atx1337's word for it. Don't. Read up on what it actually says.

[Strike-Anywhere]

"The U.S. Senate is poised to consider a bill that could keep you from finding out what the politicians are doing in Washington, D.C.

The very first bill introduced in the Senate by the new Democrat majority aims to clean up recent lobbying scandals that have plagued the halls of our government. While most of the bill is good, it contains a provision, Section 220, which will severely limit your ability to stay abreast of the important issues facing our country – harming the ability of organizations such as Focus on the Family Action to share that information with you.

If this horrible new bill passes communications from Focus Action, known as "grassroots communications," will be tied up in miles of new red tape. These bureaucratic restrictions are unconscionable, and failure to comply could result in $100,000 fines.

It's clear that this is a concerted effort to silence the voice of Americans by making it harder for you to know what's happening. At the same time, Section 220 will create a loophole for labor unions, trade associations and foreign corporations."

this, imo, is worse than ANYTHING bush has done.
it's clearly an attempt to shoot down right-wing talk radio and similar things by the liberal senate.

foucs on the family? what the hell does that have to do with grassroot organizations?

no link...i smell bullshit.

[Frosty]

Anyone read Ace Hippie's post? No?

Ok, then.

[18C]

a7x1337, do you actually read any articles or bills you're citing? I'm so sick of lobbyists pushing their agendas with money and other things. This could actually be a good thing.

[Karajan]

It IS amusing when someone comes in and posts the actual bill and sets the record straight, yet people still hear what they want to hear and pay no attention, so long as it goes along with their agenda.

Thank you Ace Hippie, although no one is paying attention. :banghead:

[troutofdoom]

It's amusing, too, when even Nocturnal can't hold back his bias. He's usually so good masking it, but it's plain as day here. Without knowing anything about it, he calls it a "good thing" because it harms Focus on the Family and implies that it CAN'T be as bad as what Bush has done. Just because the Democrats introduced it.

[Burningnun]

Did you miss the part of his post where he said he could only hazard a guess since the OP didn't post a link or quote more than two words of the bill?

[Mr. Heskey]

Why can't they ever write these new bills in layman's terms so the common man can understand it? That's the thing I hate most about politics/politicians. They use the same political jargon/lingo to the point where the average american citizen can't read it.

[dialamo]

New world order, here we come....

[Spike Lee]

Why can't they ever write these new bills in layman's terms so the common man can understand it? That's the thing I hate most about politics/politicians. They use the same political jargon/lingo to the point where the average american citizen can't read it.
because laymans terms can be subject to variation

[mrredrocker]

It's amusing, too, when even Nocturnal can't hold back his bias. He's usually so good masking it, but it's plain as day here. Without knowing anything about it, he calls it a "good thing" because it harms Focus on the Family and implies that it CAN'T be as bad as what Bush has done. Just because the Democrats introduced it.

Damn right. It's pretty entertaining when someone who obviously thinks of himself as a completely open-minded, free-thinking person who calls out others for their bias lets his own bias shine through with such close-minded opinions. If someone else had said something like that, Nocturnal would have jumped down their throat in his typical strong-arm manner.

Now watch, he'll either condescend to these remarks and act like his all-knowing self, or he'll call us both "trolls" because we have less posts than him.

[Spike Lee]

you guys obviously dont know NOC. Especially when you think he will call you out for "trolling".

[Burningnun]

He didn't say that was his opinion he said he was GUESSING because the OP didn't give anyone any information.

Jeez