New lobbying bill to criminalize political bloggers?

by Nate Anderson
ArsTechnica
Jan. 18, 2007

One of the Democratic priorities for the new Congress was passage of a lobbyist reform bill, but the introduction of S.1 into the Senate has caused a veritable firestorm of controversy. That's because section 220 of the bill introduces disclosure requirements for "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." The Traditional Values Coalition calls this section the "most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever proposed in the United States Senate," while GrassrootsFreedom.com chairman Richard Viguerie says that if it passes, "We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy." But are these accurate statements, or is truth the first casualty of rhetoric?

S.1 would change the rules for lobbyists. It bans all gifts from lobbyists, imposes restrictions on trips and accommodation offered to elected officials, and requires all "earmarks" to be identified in spending bills, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the bill also wants to bring disclosure requirements to the murky world of astroturf groups (so-called because they mimic real grassroots organizations). This is certainly a noble goal; undisclosed corporate money washes through so many front groups now that it can be difficult to tell when opinions are genuine and when they are bought and sold.

Section 220 of the bill "would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K. Street lobbyists," said Viguerie in a statement, but the truth isn't that simple.

First, a couple of facts: though groups like the Family Research Council claim that "the liberal leadership in the US Senate seeks to silence groups like the Family Research Council," the bill was actually cosponsored by Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the top Republican leader in the Senate. What's more, the bill appears to be an exact reintroduction of last year's S.2349, which was introduced by Trent Lott (R-MS) and actually passed the Republican-controlled Senate, complete with section 220.

So much for the liberal plot. In fact, some liberal groups oppose the measure, including the ACLU. The group argues that the reporting requirements are "onerous" and that "people must be able to disseminate information, contact their representatives, and encourage others to do so as well."

So what's in the bill?

Section 220 introduces a series of modifications to the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act. The most important is that "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" now counts as "lobbying" under certain circumstances. Currently, lobbyists are only considered as such if they have contact with elected officials or staff members. Should the new bill become law, disclosure and reporting requirements for lobbyists would be extended to groups who attempt to influence the general public to contact legislators.

This is what has inspired claims that bloggers and activists of all stripes will suddenly be classed as lobbyists and will be monitored by the government. What the bill says, though, is that the rules only apply to people who are paid by clients to encourage the public to contact Congress about specific legislation. The rules do not apply to any communication directed at less than 500 people, they do not apply to any communication directed at a group's current membership, and they do not impose any speech regulations (all that is required is a quarterly report describing where one's money came from and what bills were worked on).

Would this apply to a political blogger? Not usually. Because section 220 is only a series of changes to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, that legislation's other rules still apply. According to OMB Watch, a government accountability watchdog group, the LDA's registration requirement is only triggered by groups that spend more than $24,500 on lobbying semiannually and employ a least one person who spends 20 percent or more of their work time on lobbying. The bill also concerns only the federal government; groups operating at the state level are exempt.

It might apply to groups like the Family Research Council and the ACLU, however, but that seems to be exactly the intent of the bill. These are major advocacy groups in the same league as the astroturf groups so often funded by industry, not tiny nonprofits operating out a rented storefront in a downtrodden Midwest town—or bloggers operating from a basement.

The measure will hardly "send critics to jail," as Richard Viguerie warns, and it's simply not true that the "Senate will have criminalized the exercise of First Amendment rights." Sending in a form can hardly be counted as draconian government harrassment, much less criminalization of free speech, and it won't apply to most small advocacy groups or bloggers anyway. (Note that Viguerie is referred to as the "direct mail titan of the right" by SourceWatch, and that he would need to disclose his clients and their payments to him in many cases if this law were to pass).

The legislation seems designed instead to give the public more information about who is funding public advocacy campaigns. Much as prescription drug makers have begun advertising their products directly to the general public, other corporations have found it more productive to disguise their interest in an issue, convince the public that it's either good or bad, then let individuals contact Congress directly. This gives their message more credibility, but citizens first need to know that the sources for these messages are credible.

Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT), though, is concerned that section 220 is overly broad. He has introduced amendment 20, which would kill section 220 but leave the rest of the bill intact. (As a sign of just how much interest the bill has received on Capitol Hill, it currently has 96 proposed amendments).

S.1 has not yet come to a vote, though debate has progressed vigorously and a vote could be called at any time.