Raw Story 18 January 2007

An effort by Senate Republicans to add a line-item veto amendment to the Senate Ethics Reform package may have left the legislation hanging by a thread. But some prominent conservatives could be pleased with the bill's potential demise.

A section within the rules, requiring workers paid to "stimulate grassroots lobbying" to register as lobbyists, has both liberal and conservative activists crying foul. Some of them contend that the rule would place limits on free speech and may even require bloggers to report quarterly to Congress, in the same manner as if they were major lobbying firms.

Viguerie went on to claim that, if the Senate adopts the new rules, this provision would be "the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself... the Senate will have criminalized the exercise of First Amendment rights. We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy."

Mark Fitzgibbons, who works on legal matters for Viguerie – but doesn't speak on the Moral Majority co-founder's behalf – told RAW STORY that "there are a lot of good provisions in the rest of the lobbying reform bill."

"Ethics reform bill is very much needed," Fitzgibbons added. "I don't know anybody who's opposed to ethics reform except maybe some members of Congress and some people on K street."

When pressed on whether he thought losing the whole ethics reform package was worth it to strike down this one provision, Fitzgibbons said, "I guess that's an option that's not necessary. If that's the only option, It would be better if the whole bill went down with the grassroots provision, at this juncture, and they can introduce another bill [in the near future]."

ACLU & TVC: Foes turned friends

The American Civil Liberties Union held a news conference earlier today, in conjunction with the Traditional Values Coalition, to discuss the constitutionality of the rules. In the past, TVC has often criticized the ACLU, accusing the group of helping to wage a "secular war against Christmas," among other things.

"The intention of supporters of the bill is to limit the impact of what they call 'big-dollar advertising,'" the two groups said in a statement received by RAW STORY. "However, it would chill the constitutionally protected activity of many advocacy organizations."

Concerning a similar piece of legislation proposed last year, the ACLU said, "A compelling governmental interest cannot be established on the basis of conjecture. There must be a factual record to sustain the government's assertion that burdens on fundamental rights are warranted."

In the same release, they added, "Here, there is little if any record to support the contention that grassroots lobbying needs to be regulated. Without this record, the government will be unable to sustain its assertion that grassroots lobbying should be regulated."

What remains unclear is to what extent the legislation would actually diminish First Amendment protections, or in what way it differs from existing rules on other types of lobbyists. The bill exempts "grass roots lobbyists" from any registration or reporting requirements. However, it does require people paid to stimulate grassroots support for lobbying Congress to register as lobbyists.

Though the section says nothing specifically about blogs, certain bloggers could find themselves bound by the provision if they're paid by someone to incite others to lobby Congress on a particular issue. But the rule only applies to blogs that have audiences of more than 500 readers.

Supporters of the legislation have a markedly different take. On the floor of the Senate yesterday, Russell Feingold (D-WI) said the section works in two ways.

"First, it requires registered lobbyists to report how much they spend on efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on the lobbying disclosure reports that they are already required to file," Feingold said. "Second, it requires large professional so-called 'grassroots lobbying firms' to report on the amount they receive for their services, just like any other lobbyist."

Feingold went on to note that the section, "only applies to registered lobbyists and large grassroots lobbying firms, and it does not prohibit or restrict their activities in any way. In fact, Section 220 merely makes public how much money they spend and how they spend it. Surely these groups that have tried to convince people to contact our offices with mistaken claims about the bill aren't afraid of a little sunlight? Or maybe they are."

Unclear, too, is whether any of this will become law. Last night, the entire bill was defeated on the floor of the Senate in a 51-46 vote. Senate rules required 65 votes for passage. The package was derailed because of what may be a permanent impasse on the issue of a line-item veto amendment introduced by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH). That amendment, strongly opposed by Democrats, would give President Bush the power to veto individual spending items in bills before signing them into law.

CNN reported earlier this evening that the ethic bill may "live" after all, as plans are in motion to attach it to the minimum wage bill, but without the line item veto.