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.
cont...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070118-8651.html
