Dear Conservative Leader,

As you may know, Section 220 of S1, the lobby reform bill, would effectively silence many grassroots organizations by subjecting them to onerous registration and reporting requirements which actually exceed what is required of the big lobbyists in Washington, D.C.

Now, Senators Robert Bennett (R-UT), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have co-sponsored Amendment 20 to S 1, which would remove Section 220 from the bill.

Please call both of your United States senators and tell them to support Amendment 20 to S 1, to delete the regulations on grassroots communications from the lobbying reform bill. Here’s what you can say when you call:

I oppose efforts to regulate my First Amendment rights and to silence critics of Congress.

Please vote for Amendment 20 sponsored by Senator Bennett and others to remove Section 220 from S. 1, the lobbying reform bill.

As NewsMax.com reports on this crucial matter, time is running out.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/11/220628.shtml?s=lh

I’ve created a website, GrassrootsFreedom.com, to help citizens fight efforts to silence us.

After you have called your two senators, I urge you to go to sign our petition at

http://www.grassrootsfreedom.com/gw3/petition/petition.php?PetitionID=25

Also, certain big Washington-based special interest groups are spreading lies about this legislation to misinform the public.

Here’s a letter, written by a lawyer with great technical knowledge of this issue. It’s written with some “legalese,” but it decimates the lies being told to hurt the grassroots.

http://www.grassrootsfreedom.com/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?action=view&CMSArticleID=485&CMSCategoryID=23

So call both of your senators, then visit GrassrootsFreedom.com

Also, please forward this message to your friends, relatives, neighbors, and coworkers.

Cordially,

Richard A. Viguerie
9625 Surveyor Court, Suite 400
Manassas, Virginia 20110

I just read section 220 of Senate Bill 1. I'm going to copy the critical part here, and then I'll comment on it.

The important part:

(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.

`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.

`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--

`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;
`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;
`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;
`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or
`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.

`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--

`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and

`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'

...okay, here's the easiest way to explain it. Unlike moveon.org, DFA, or the ACLU, the targeted groups have clients who pay them. More like an advertising agency... Colgate Palmolive goes to its ad agency and asks them to advertise a product. They give the ad agency money, and the ad agency does its research, targets the audience, and tries to reach them and persuade them to buy the product.

Well, here, the "grassroots lobbying firm" is like a political advertising aency...it has a client -- let's say it's AT&T who wants to get rid of net neutrality. AT&T pays its political ad agency $1.5 million to reach ordinary Americans and get them to either sign a petition to their legislatures, write postcards to their legislatures, organize a protest march, whatever. The "grassroots lobbying firm" takes the money, and then does what moveon.org does or DFA does -- only they don't need to go to the pool for contributions because they have the money already, they just need their targeted Americans to do whatAmericans usually do for a cause -- petition the
government.

The argument for section 220 is, it's not an attack on the First Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, it's a way of making sure
that AT&T and whatever grassroots lobbying firm is working for AT&T come clean and make clear that the money for the effort came from a corporation, and this is no real grassroots action.

HOWEVER, the argument against section 220 is -- and it's a good argument, in my opinion -- that whatever money AT&T or whoever gave to the lobbying firm
doesn't matter...because the end result is ordinary Americans, whether you like their politics or point of view or not, exercise their right to petition the
government for a redress of grievances under the First Amendment. And why shouldn't they get the information to enable them to do that, whether it's paid for by
AT&T or not? We get hit with advertising all the time, it doesn't force us to go to the store and buy the product. Why aren't they entitled, if they're on some kind of listserv that they want to be on, to be reached by the grassroots lobbying firm? Is Section 220's reporting requirements an attempt to chill the right to give information to people?

On the other hand (I could go on and on here), these ordinary Americans could scout out this information for themselves, instead of relying on paid AT&T grassroots lobbyists who will possibly twist the facts and provide false information. That's one of the real dangers.

However, as Jefferson said, in a marketplace of ideas, if you let all ideas float, the quality ones will float to the top.

ON THE OTHER HAND, these grassroots lobbying firms have an advantage over those who are really grassroots and have no money to get their message out easily, and
should they be allowed to have such easy access without reporting the source of the money that gives them such easy access -- and which also might make those ordinary Amerians on the right angry to know that they are really being manipulated by AT&T?

Okay, so there's a part of both sides, I'm sure if you think about it you can come up with more arguments for each side! It's not so clear cut as it seems in terms
of the Constitution...and, as I always say, it's another example of how things get sloppy and could damage our system when you rush legislation through.