First Amendment issues remain foremost among my concerns, both as a blogger and as an American citizen. So when Congress appears to take action to infringe on my rights to self-expression, I take notice:

The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, regarding legislation currently being considered by Congress to regulate grassroots communications:

"In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but isn't, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress.

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, 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. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating 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 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."

This would certainly make my blood boil, but the Vigurie statement is overblown and exaggerated. Stephen Bainbridge, who knows a thing or two about the law, actually read the bill, which Vigurie apparently did not bother to do:

The vast bulk of the section is definitional. When you parse out the operative language, the only persons or entities required to file reports under Section 220 are "gressroots lobbying firms." The term "grass roots lobbying firm" is defined as a person or entity that "is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period."

Someone who engages in grassroots lobbying is not required to register or file reports under section 220. Someone who engages in paid grassroots lobbying is not required to register or file reports under section 220. Only someone who is retained by a client and either earns or spends $25,000 or more per quarter is covered.

There have been times when bloggers were hired by either political or issue campaigns to blog on their behalf. Such a blogger might be covered by this statute if they make more than $25,000 per quarter for doing so. But how many bloggers does that include?

Whether or not one agrees with lobbyist registration, the definition obviously does not include bloggers, or at least those whose political activity is limited to blogging. One would have to make $25,000 in a quarter just to qualify for the registration, a threshold even Glenn Reynolds might have difficulty achieving, and all of it would have to come from a client for the express purpose of lobbying on their behalf.

It's important to remain vigilant on free speech. It's equally important to refrain from hysteria and to make sure one has the details correct before going into Chicken Little mode.

UPDATE: We have a lively discussion in the comments section, which more or less unanimously takes me to task for this post. Let me explain myself more clearly.

Vigurie and other commentators explicitly called this a "blogger registration law", which it clearly is not. In fact, Vigurie headlined this with the statement, "Congress to Send Critics to Jail". Neither of those come close to the truth. Regardless of whether one supported the bill or not, Vigurie is misrepresenting it and its effect. When one uses hyperbole to that extent, it diminishes one's credibility -- and that does nothing to help protect the First Amendment, but makes us look like kooks.

This bill does not apply to anyone who communicates with 500 or more people "with no qualifiers", as Vigurie also states in his release. In fact, there's a huge qualifier: it applies to anyone who communicates on behalf of a paid client and earns $25,000 or more in a quarter, or firm spending $25,000 or more in a quarter on grassroots lobbying efforts. It's not intended to apply to people who communicate for themselves or who commit political activism for their pet causes. In order to fall under this law, a person has to work for one or more clients to conduct "grassroots lobbying efforts" on their behalf, or pay for $25,000 worth of it in three months.

In fact, this essentially requires paid activist facilitators to do what other lobbying firms must: register as lobbyists. If people object to this, then they should also object to the registration of all lobbyists and lobbying firms, defined as it is in the bill. Many people act as if this mechanism is something new, but it isn't. It would actually ensure that lobbyists for smaller and perhaps more radical groups -- like International ANSWER, for instance -- register as paid lobbyists representing clients.

I'm not sure how I feel about lobbyist registration. Perhaps no lobbyists should have to register as such, or perhaps the limit of getting paid $25,000 in a quarter is too low. I do know it's nothing new, and this legislation only extends the same mechanism to lobbyists representing groups other than unions and corporations, which seems to be a reasonable proposition.

To emphasize my point, this has nothing much to do with bloggers at all, and not much more to do with free speech, except to extend registration requirements to a wider class of professional lobbyists. Vigurie does us all a disservice by wildly exaggerating the legislation and its impact, and in the end that does harm to our credibility as conservatives.

UPDATE II: People are still missing the point. There may well be problems with this bill, and it doesn't sound like something I'd support. Even if we wanted to extend lobbying registration, which I question, I think the $25,000 limit is too low and sucks up too many smaller organizations.

That being said, two issues that this bill does not have are forcing bloggers to register and Congress granting itself powers to throw critics in jail. Making those charges without foundation does not do credit to the conservative cause, and it starts sounding like the boy who cried wolf.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Vigilance, Not Overreaction (Updated):

» Bloggers are dangerous to Democrats from The Cool Blue Blog
Apparently it's not enough that Democrats want to silence conservative talk shows, now the new Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has introduced an amendment to S.1, the Ethics Reform bill, that would require political bloggers with readership over 50... [Read More]

Tracked on January 19, 2007 8:03 AM

» Grassroots Killer from The Violence Worker!
UPDATED and bumped 19 Jan 07 0625: According to Captain's Quarters Blog, Captain Ed cites Professor Stephen Bainbridge, a conservative law professor at Berkely (Imagine that) who says that the below is not what I and many others thought. I [Read More]

Tracked on January 19, 2007 8:26 AM

» Blogger Registration Story: Bogus? from StephenBainbridge.com
Richard Viguerie has been spamming conservative bloggers with a story about how Section 220 of S. 1, the Democrats' lobbying reform bill, would require bloggers to register with the government. David Hardy and a Townhall blogger have now bitten, with [Read More]

Tracked on January 19, 2007 2:59 PM

» Blogger Registration Story: Bogus? from StephenBainbridge.com
Richard Viguerie has been spamming conservative bloggers with a story about how Section 220 of S. 1, the Democrats' lobbying reform bill, would require bloggers to register with the government. David Hardy and a Townhall blogger have now bitten, with [Read More]

Tracked on January 19, 2007 3:01 PM