It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New S1 bill

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Alot of fuss is being made about a newish bill in congress alledegedly taking more of your 1st ammendment rights.


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.

Notice the part where it says "but do not include grassroots lobbying"
IMHO grassroots lobbying is what we all are doing here and it is clearly excluded.




posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
So this article is BS?

PAID EFFORT:

"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.


So a blog, a forum, a radio station, a newspaper, TV... all subject to file a report to congress...


Even if it would mean that, it would be UNenforcable...

Some analysis from a little lobby
An analysis from a republican
Another analysis

So I would like some scholars that are specialized in laws to clear that up.


[edit on 17-1-2007 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Do I understand this correctly?

Actually, I don't understand it at all. I guess I thought that lobbying meant communicating ideas and such, directly to sitting politicians. Not expressing opinions to a large audience.

So anyone who speaks on the radio, T.V., writes an article in any published literature, and expresses a political belief will have to 'register' with congress?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
doesnt disclosure mean they have to say who they are?
Im not sure disclosure is a bad thing.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   


doesnt disclosure mean they have to say who they are?
Im not sure disclosure is a bad thing.

Disclosure for lobbyist isn't a bad thing, but disclosure by bloggers IS a bad thing because you can be labelled as an enemy for your views or be put in a list without you knowing.


"On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create
criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly
and willingly fails to file or report.'

The problem is that you would be forced to submit a report to the congress, and if you don't you go to jail and/or have a fine of 100.000$.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
If someone is paid to blog then there already is disclosure in the form of tax records ect.

I think the key here is "paid"

I think knowing who is paying to sway your vote is a good thing.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
So this article is BS?

PAID EFFORT:

"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.


So a blog, a forum, a radio station, a newspaper, TV... all subject to file a report to congress...


Even if it would mean that, it would be UNenforcable...

Some analysis from a little lobby
An analysis from a republican
Another analysis

So I would like some scholars that are specialized in laws to clear that up.


I'm not a scholar, and I'm not picking on Vitchilo, but, here's my 2 cents...


I understand that Congress is putting more and more limitations of the "lobbying efforts" through this piece of legislation... however, pay close attention to the definitions.

Yes they are becoming more strict on the idea of "paid" grassroots lobbying, but what they are getting to there is this...

If V.P. Cheney promises his old company, halliburton, oh say... XXX amount of money to support his name for election, he would reimburse them "XXX" (this) way.

Cheney gets into office, he recommends many times we go to war in order to get Halliburton in to rebuild said destruction, and everyone's happy.



That is the type of "grassroots" "paid" lobbying that this piece of legislation it tackling.


According to the bill, and it's definitions, I, since I am not being paid, nor have I any affiliation with any type of firm that would be monetarily supporting my cause, can do this: www.petitiononline.com...


We need reform to get the money out of politics. We need to get the corrupt politicians that currently hold any seat through our 3 branches of government.... OUT!!

We have got to get rid of the "professional politicians" if we want to save our country.

This in no means stops the general populous from doing something or saying something to Congress to get them to change our government. All it does is put a stop to the money.

Your 1st Amendment Right is still active. You can exercise it at will. However, and I'm not so sure too many can do it, you... yes you... have to be willing and able to get up off your butt and do something to change our Government. S. 1 doesn't stop you from doing that.


Am I getting through to anyone?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Well with the media being controlled and filtered by our government, I dont think anyone in they're right mind would stand up to the government. You could be arrested and never heard about again. Nor would there be anything on the new's about you're disappearance. We should all be afraid.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by atsrules
Well with the media being controlled and filtered by our government, I dont think anyone in they're right mind would stand up to the government. You could be arrested and never heard about again. Nor would there be anything on the new's about you're disappearance. We should all be afraid.


That is the most incorrect statement I have ever heard.

The government should be afraid of us. We should be concerned and active, not afraid. We put them in office. We pay their salaries.

I for one will stand up to the government, even if on my own.

[edit on 1/17/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Elect people to our Democracy, the way the Greeks did?
They are the ones who invented it.
They would put all the peoples names in a big jar and just draw them out randomly, the people they picked would hold that position for a year, then after that they would draw another name next year, this is true democracy, Government for the People By the People.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133
Elect people to our Democracy, the way the Greeks did?
They are the ones who invented it.
They would put all the peoples names in a big jar and just draw them out randomly, the people they picked would hold that position for a year, then after that they would draw another name next year, this is true democracy, Government for the People By the People.


Yes, there needs to be an amendment to the constitution that would change the election process to make it as to where new officials are elected into office on a yearly basis. That along with S. 1 (that is if I understand it correctly) would essentially take all monies out of the 3 branches of government, and would prevent "professional" politicians.







 
0

log in

join