NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north504.html. Basically, this bill will punish people for sending e-mails to the "general public" about government, so that the Beltway can better obscure their predatory dealings.

I operate a Web site, www.garynorth.com, that has a public section and a members-only section. According to this bill, I am allowed to communicate my concern about a proposed bill to my site's members. But what if I try to communicate the same message on the open-access portion of my site? How could I prove that I am not trying to influence over 500 members of the general public?

I get paid by site members. So, if I ever mention a piece of legislation on the "general public" part of my site, does this payment by members make me a grassroots lobbyist? How much will it cost me in legal fees to prove that I'm not?

Is there any freedom that the government won't try to take away in the most absurd way?

I will answer with a question.
If he rented a concert hall and invited 500 people to come and listen to him as an individual they know and recognize to talk about his opinion on the next bill. Would he be grassroots lobbying?


The answer is: fucking yes. Just because you are online doesn't mean you shouldn't be susceptible to the rules everyone else has to be.

I am beginning to doubt it.

I read the article, in spite of it's heavily biased ramblings. You kow what the law says that he's so worked up over?

"if you get paid to be a lobbyist, we want to know about it".

That's it. It doesn't stop you from doing it, it doesn't charge you, it just says you're required to fill some paperwork if yu earn money through contacting the public for lobbying purposes.

The horror, the horror.

I read the article, in spite of it's heavily biased ramblings. You kow what the law says that he's so worked up over?

"if you get paid to be a lobbyist, we want to know about it".

That's it. It doesn't stop you from doing it, it doesn't charge you, it just says you're required to fill some paperwork if yu earn money through contacting the public for lobbying purposes.

The horror, the horror.

But they define lobbyist so broadly that it serves to punish anyone who contacts the public and is paid for doing so. Even people who are just paid to have a blog that talks about government. It's absolute censorship.

I read the article, in spite of it's heavily biased ramblings. You kow what the law says that he's so worked up over?

"if you get paid to be a lobbyist, we want to know about it".

That's it. It doesn't stop you from doing it, it doesn't charge you, it just says you're required to fill some paperwork if yu earn money through contacting the public for lobbying purposes.

The horror, the horror.

Unfortunatly, that also means Media Services cannot report on what the government is going also. more often than not, their opinions and interpretations are inserted, thus raising support for or against such bills.

can anyone post the Bill number that the Dems are trying to put forth?

But they define lobbyist so broadly that it serves to punish anyone who contacts the public and is paid for doing so. Even people who are just paid to have a blog that talks about government. It's absolute censorship.

except that's not what it says, not at all. If you read your own article it says:

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)

It's not "anyone wh contacts the public and is paid for doing so"

It is anyone who is: (1) paid to (2) contact the public to (3) influence them to contact the government.

And guess what? Getting paid to contact the public and get them to contact the government is the very fucking definition of lobbying.

Unfortunatly, that also means Media Services cannot report on what the government is going also. more often than not, their opinions and interpretations are inserted, thus raising support for or against such bills.

can anyone post the Bill number that the Dems are trying to put forth?

except there's a huge difference between "this law sucks" and "this law sucks, so go tell your congressman not to vote for it".

Lobbying requires more than opinion, it requires overt attempts to get me to do something. It requires what is in general sensesin the lobbying circles refered to as a "call for action".

Now of course this person says it doesn't require such a thing, but of course as I said, this pieceis heavily biased, and ignores the fact that this law should be interpreted in the scheme of larger lobbying rules in their totality.

In other words, as a general principle, calls to action are needed to make something lobbying, and since this bill doesn't in any way alter that, that scheme remains.

Simply telling somoene your opinion isn't lobbying.

It's not "anyone wh contacts the public and is paid for doing so"

It is anyone who is: (1) paid to (2) contact the public to (3) influence them to contact the government.

And guess what? Getting paid to contact the public and get them to contact the government is the very fucking definition of lobbying.

But that's just what I said, and it's freaking ridiculous. Why do they have to get the government's permission before asking people to change the government, no matter the circumstances?

But that's just what I said, and it's freaking ridiculous. Why do they have to get the government's permission before asking people to change the government, no matter the circumstances?

get the government's permission?

You fail at understanding the difference between notification and consent. But let me give you a hint.

Consent means you need the other party to agree. Notification means you need to tell the other party, and you really don't need to give a damn what they think about it.

except there's a huge difference between "this law sucks" and "this law sucks, so go tell your congressman not to vote for it".

Lobbying requires more than opinion, it requires overt attempts to get me to do something. It requires what is in general sensesin the lobbying circles refered to as a "call for action".

Now of course this person says it doesn't require such a thing, but of course as I said, this pieceis heavily biased, and ignores the fact that this law should be interpreted in the scheme of larger lobbying rules in their totality.

In other words, as a general principle, calls to action are needed to make something lobbying, and since this bill doesn't in any way alter that, that scheme remains.

Simply telling somoene your opinion isn't lobbying.
ahh, but all the media has to do is say...
"This law is currently being discussed in Congress, if passed, this is how it will impact you." then if they put a negative spin on it, people would write to their congressmen to urge not to vote for it.

If they put a positive spin on it, then people would write to urge their congressmen to support it.

But they define lobbyist so broadly that it serves to punish anyone who contacts the public and is paid for doing so. Even people who are just paid to have a blog that talks about government. It's absolute censorship.

But if his sole interest is just communicating and he has no lobbying interests then he is not damaged by this law. He is absolutely free to pontificate all he wants.

ahh, but all the media has to do is say...
"This law is currently being discussed in Congress, if passed, this is how it will impact you." then if they put a negative spin on it, people would write to their congressmen to urge not to vote for it.

If they put a positive spin on it, then people would write to urge their congressmen to support it.

Research first, then talk. The bill that this fellow is getting so worked up over is a proposed addendum to an existing law, namely 2 U.S.C. 1602.

2 U.S.C. 1602 states:

) Exceptions
The term “lobbying contact” does not include a communication that is—

(ii) made by a representative of a media organization if the purpose of the communication is gathering and disseminating news and information to the public;
(iii) made in a speech, article, publication or other material that is distributed and made available to the public, or through radio, television, cable television, or other medium of mass communication;

This "new law" wouldn't cover media, since it's not a new law at all, it's an addendum to an existing law, which already makes those exceptions.

get the government's permission?

You fail at understanding the difference between notification and consent. But let me give you a hint.

Consent means you need the other party to agree. Notification means you need to tell the other party, and you really don't need to give a damn what they think about it.

But that's still basically getting the other guy's permission to do what you want- the permission is only given after you fill out the forms. If you don't do it, you don't get their permission and they haul you to court.

But if his sole interest is just communicating and he has no lobbying interests then he is not damaged by this law. He is absolutely free to pontificate all he wants.

"Wow, this bill sure sucks! Go find your congressman and tell him so too!" says Joe Blogger. Under this bill, it would be interpreted as lobbying, and he would be punished for doing this unless he filled out some forms.

oh and the whole "what if I make a blog" thing:

another exception should cover that fine: (xvi) made on behalf of an individual with regard to that individual’s benefits, employment, or other personal matters involving only that individual

So, you know, getting a blog and talking about your beliefs, also exception.

The fact is that the guy either doesn't know what he's talking about, or bending facts to fit a point. He said the law is vague and undefined.

The thing is, it's not a law in and of itself, it's an addendum to existing law. Of fucking course it's not going to make any sense, and be exceptionally vague, when read on its own, it has to be read along with the existing law it will be added to. This addendum doesn't define terms, or make clarifications because those definitions and clarifications have ALREADY been given, in the law it will be added to.

But that's still basically getting the other guy's permission to do what you want- the permission is only given after you fill out the forms. If you don't do it, you don't get their permission and they haul you to court.

No, you are notifying the other guy, the form is the thing not the permission that comes after. If they can't say no, it's not permission, it's simply notification. If you're going to argue law, make sure you have an understanding of fundamentally basic legal terms



"Wow, this bill sure sucks! Go find your congressman and tell him so too!" says Joe Blogger. Under this bill, it would be interpreted as lobbying, and he would be punished for doing this unless he filled out some forms.


Personal statement made for personal reasons aready exempt in 2 U.S.C 1602. Seriously this is not a new law, it's a proposed addendum to existing law.

How in hell are you going to stand here and talk about what sections 17 and 18 will do, when you haven't read sections 1 through 16 yet?

Research first, then talk.

No, you are notifying the other guy, the form is the thing not the permission that comes after. If they can't say no, it's not permission, it's simply notification. If you're going to argue law, make sure you have an understanding of fundamentally basic legal terms





Personal statement made for personal reasons aready exempt in 2 U.S.C 1602. Seriously this is not a new law, it's a proposed addendum to existing law.

How in hell are you going to stand here and talk about what sections 17 and 18 will do, when you haven't read sections 1 through 16 yet?



Bah, I guess you're right. I still think that this notification stuff is a bunch of hooie.

Bah, I guess you're right. I still think that this notification stuff is a bunch of hooie.

what I've been lookingto find out, and can't yet, is if this is tied up to non profit status.

From what i can see this is fairly standard for non profits to have a reporting requirement or risk losing their status.

Either way, not blaming you so much, the guy who wrote the piece either, as I said, didn't know what he was talking about, or was twisting the facts to come out in a place that wasn't really accurate.

what I've been lookingto find out, and can't yet, is if this is tied up to non profit status.

From what i can see this is fairly standard for non profits to have a reporting requirement or risk losing their status.

Either way, not blaming you so much, the guy who wrote the piece either, as I said, didn't know what he was talking about, or was twisting the facts to come out in a place that wasn't really accurate.

OK. Still, I'm sorry though, I feel like an idiot now.

OK. Still, I'm sorry though, I feel like an idiot now.

meh, don't. Being able to glance at a code and mentally pull out the relevant parts is a skill one acquires through years of lawschool. Reading laws (and finding them) can be a complicated and vaguely painful process, I just happen to be good at it in profession, and catch a bit more of the buzzwords that others might miss.

Research first, then talk. The bill that this fellow is getting so worked up over is a proposed addendum to an existing law, namely 2 U.S.C. 1602.

2 U.S.C. 1602 states:



This "new law" wouldn't cover media, since it's not a new law at all, it's an addendum to an existing law, which already makes those exceptions.
Read my first post.

I believe I did ask for the number of the bill they were trying to put forth, so that in itself is an indication that I know the OP article is lacking.

so what's the Addendum?

meh, don't. Being able to glance at a code and mentally pull out the relevant parts is a skill one acquires through years of lawschool. Reading laws (and finding them) can be a complicated and vaguely painful process, I just happen to be good at it in profession, and catch a bit more of the buzzwords that others might miss.

one of the many reasons why when people talk about bills or laws, I'd rather look at the source document itself and then make my own conclusion.

I read the article, in spite of it's heavily biased ramblings. You kow what the law says that he's so worked up over?

"if you get paid to be a lobbyist, we want to know about it".

That's it. It doesn't stop you from doing it, it doesn't charge you, it just says you're required to fill some paperwork if yu earn money through contacting the public for lobbying purposes.

The horror, the horror.
Right. Hey, remember when Nazi Germany said that all Jews had to register with the government? Because, you know, they didn't do anything to those Jews later on - the government just wanted to know about it.

Right. Hey, remember when Nazi Germany said that all Jews had to register with the government? Because, you know, they didn't do anything to those Jews later on - the government just wanted to know about it.

Very true. I mean look what atrocities the US government has done to all those who had to register for social security numbers.