The official Prexus message board that won't sell out.

Prexus, an EQ community

0 Kudo

Well it sounded like a good idea at the time

Add Reply New Topic New Poll

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Fishbeak	Well it sounded like a good idea at the time		Lead	[-]
Posts: 2329 01-18-07 3:16 PM	Tags : camel I'm not going to provide a source as the only sources I have so far are blogs from both the right and left. And I loathe using blogs as sources. There are plenty of blogs writing about this today (I found 4 without actually trying), if you want your own source you wont having any trouble finding one. But... tucked in the new ethics bill is this gem: anyone involved in "grassroots lobbying" would be required to register with the feds if they a) reach 500 people or more and b) make $25,000 or more in any quarter and c) try to "influence the general public," Hmmm - sounds like most if not all of the blogs I read. I am sure it covers all of the most popular political blogs. While merely registering is not an explicit limit on speech it certainly is an implied one. Bad bad bad. Borofin's bitch
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Falkahnhan		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2625 01-18-07 3:38 PM	Not that I think this is a good thing, I'm withholding judgment for the time being, but most blogs out there don't make $25,000 in their "lobbying" efforts. - Joe I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. - James Madison
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Fishbeak		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2329 01-18-07 3:43 PM	most blogs out there don't make $25,000 in their "lobbying" efforts. I think there are a fair number that make $25k. The law doesn't stipulate the money has to come from lobbying efforts. One of the tech blogs I read (techcrunch) was estimated to generate over 1 million per year from ads alone, not including speaking engagements or random other crap. I don't think $25k is a high bar for a good blog to clear. In addition to the free speech implications I see it as the government punishing successful bloggers. Bloggers who suck and can't generate income will not be burdened with this requirement. Borofin's bitch
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Ersiusp		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2294 01-18-07 3:48 PM 1-900-Santa	Falkahnhan wrote: Not that I think this is a good thing, I'm withholding judgment for the time being, but most blogs out there don't make $25,000 in their "lobbying" efforts. Regardless of their income, I would assume that most political blogs easily reach 500 people. It's also an easy thing to "arrange" for an annoying but minor blog to reach enough new readers to be able to punish them for not following regulations. This new quoting system is stupid. How do you get your own text to show up outside of the box? Cultural Marxism is the belief that it's not appropriate to solicit gay sex in public restrooms. Last Edited By: Ersiusp 01-18-07 3:56 PM. Edited 2 times.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Falkahnhan		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2625 01-18-07 3:49 PM	If all it involves is filling out a form and sending it to some government agency. How is registering a punishment? - Joe I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. - James Madison
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Falkahnhan		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2625 01-18-07 3:53 PM	View your post in HTML and add <BR> after the last </blockquote> - Joe I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. - James Madison
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Ersiusp		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2294 01-18-07 3:56 PM 1-900-Santa	thanks! Cultural Marxism is the belief that it's not appropriate to solicit gay sex in public restrooms.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Fishbeak		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2329 01-18-07 4:07 PM	How is registering a punishment? See the NRA web site for details. Are we really gonna go around this again Falk - you arguing for more government regulation, me arguing against it? Didn't you just yesterday plop out some smary remark about my partisanship? Do I really need to remind you what a true conservative is, stands for? C'mon. More government is bad unless proven otherwise. This will surely not be a good thing. Borofin's bitch
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
vizco		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3037 01-18-07 4:10 PM Raid Peon	Falk, what possible purpose does this silly idea have other than to intimidate and harass free speech? Since when is "it isn't a punishment" a justification for useless regulation? And thanks, Fish, for making the registering guns analogy; I was warming up to that one. Harmony of Souls : My Quiver All this science I don't understand; it's just my job five days a week.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Soygen		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 7112 01-18-07 4:46 PM 100% Soybean	Falkahnhan wrote: View your post in HTML and add <BR> after the last </blockquote> Or when you click the quote button, you can just click the cursor outside of the quote. You can tell it's outside when it's not indented where the quote text is. I'm not givin' you attitude. I just want another drink.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Aielman KajiraLiege		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4606 01-18-07 4:59 PM	Are we really gonna go around this again Falk - you arguing for more government regulation, me arguing against it? I guess it kind of depends on whether you think that groups giving money is free speach. I don't. I think it's an excuse to allow influence peddling. Noone has ever made an arguement that I agreed with that convinced me that allowing a group of people, or a corporation, to give money for political influence should in ANY way be constitutionally protected as long as the individuals within the group aren't barred from giving money individually. It's just institutional bribery...and I'm all for any efforts to curb it. And thanks, Fish, for making the registering guns analogy; I was warming up to that one. It's a lousy analogy. Registering guns would affect individuals. This affects a group, but not the individuals that are a part of it. The NRA not only has to register as a lobby, they have to have full public disclosure...by law. Something that smaller groups don't have to put up with. Should the NRA not have to disclose the information it is forced to? And btw...as a lifetime NRA member...I don't think they should be allowed to donate money to politcal campaigns either...nor should the be allowed to collect money for political purposes without having to register and disclose all finances. But hey...it's all a moot point anyways. Our democrat controlled congress would never let such a thing happen, being the becons of civil liberties that they are and all. peace, Aielman "There are no stupid questions...but there certainly are a LOT of inquisitive idiots" Husband, Father, Squisher of bugs. aka Bret Last Edited By: Aielman KajiraLiege 01-18-07 5:04 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Falkahnhan		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2625 01-18-07 5:11 PM	Fishbeak wrote: Are we really gonna go around this again Falk - you arguing for more government regulation, me arguing against it? Except I'm not arguing in favor of this. As I said in my first post, I'm still withholding judgment on this topic as I haven't see any actual source confirming it to be true. Maybe I'll argue for it, maybe I'll think it's a crappy idea, I can't honestly say since I have no information on it other than what you've posted. Didn't you just yesterday plop out some smary remark about my partisanship? Yes, generally speaking you are partisan. I don't see why that's relevant to this thread but yes, I did recently call you out for being partisan. Do I really need to remind you what a true conservative is, stands for? Why should I limit my political opinions to be what you consider "conservative?" Yes, I'm generally conservative but I'm not conservative on every topic... you should know that by now. Why do you always insist on putting people in some convenient-to-you political box? Why does it matter if my opinion on a topic doesn't toe the line with your definition of "conservative?" How about you focus less on labeling people and more on what they're saying. There's more to a person's opinion than them being conservative, liberal, of having an R or D next to their name when they're interviewed on TV. edit: Just as a follow up, there are very few (if any) people whose opinions coincide identically with an ideal definition of "conservative" or "liberal" or "moderate" or anything else. It seems pointless to focus on whether or not someone matches a definition much less a definition of our choosing. - Joe I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. - James Madison Last Edited By: Falkahnhan 01-18-07 7:11 PM. Edited 2 times.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Falkahnhan		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2625 01-18-07 5:17 PM	Really, I would like to know how registration, if it's free and easy, would be a punishment? You have to register to vote, is that a punishment aimed at keeping people from voting? - Joe I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. - James Madison
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
fatesdefiance		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3105 01-18-07 8:12 PM Community Member	Totally agree with Aielman. Requiring an organization that will be using money for political influence to register their intent and ability to do so is not "more government," it is accountability. Any time political money is being spent by an organization (as opposed to an individual), it absolutely should be disclosed to the public to prevent malfeasance. Hunter Tarryn Valewalker -- Twisted Fates (Prexus - Retired) Nightshade Tarryn Valewalker -- Kingfisher Brigade EQ2 - Unrest Tarryn of Dale, Hunter -- Dies Irae LotRO - Meneldor
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Zonn		#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 764 01-19-07 6:15 AM The Lizard King	I guess it kind of depends on whether you think that groups giving money is free speach. I don't. I think it's an excuse to allow influence peddling. Noone has ever made an arguement that I agreed with that convinced me that allowing a group of people, or a corporation, to give money for political influence should in ANY way be constitutionally protected as long as the individuals within the group aren't barred from giving money individually. I essentially agree. I do not consider money or goods to be speech. I think speech is only the action of expressing opinion through words or acts to convey meaning. Basically, communication is the only form of speech I recognize. An exchange of goods and services I consider bribery. Ideally I'd like to see fully public financed campaigns granting equal access to public forums for each candidate. Then individuals and groups would be free to show support through speech in whatever forum they choose, but groups would be required to register as lobbyists still. In the interim a wise application of lobby regulation is a nice step in the right direction in my view. I'm not entirely sure this current measure is the right bar to set though in principle I'm certainly not opposed to action. Axiss Glox Level 70 Stone Fist
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Ididar Tzan		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2497 01-19-07 7:39 AM	The problem I have is that its not just paying for individual candidates but any cause that this would impact. If you champion any cause and raise too much money (25,000 or more) for advertising and have a decent audience now you have to register. So, essentially, the more the public agrees with you the higher the chance you have to register. I can see having to register if you're paying money directly into an individual politician's campaign coffers but championing a cause, to me, is not in the same category.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Falkahnhan		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2625 01-19-07 8:31 AM	What does registering entail? - Joe I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. - James Madison
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Falkahnhan		#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2625 01-19-07 8:40 AM	Again, not to say this is a good or bad thing but here is some background info on lobby registration: Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 SEC. 4. REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS. (a) REGISTRATION.- (1) GENERAL RULE.-No later than 45 days after a lobbyist first makes a lobbying contact or is employed or retained to make a lobbying contact, whichever is earlier, such lobbyist (or, as provided under paragraph (2), the organization employing such lobbyist), shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. (2) EMPLOYER FILING.-Any organization that has 1 or more employees who are lobbyists shall file a single registration under this section on behalf of such employees for each client on whose behalf the employees act as lobbyists. (3) EXEMPTION.- (A) GENERAL RULE.-Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), a person or entity whose- (i) total income for matters related to lobbying activities on behalf of a particular client (in the case of a lobbying firm) does not exceed and is not expected to exceed $5,000; or (ii) total expenses in connection with lobbying activities (in the case of an organization whose employees engage in lobbying activities on its own behalf) do not exceed or are not expected to exceed $20,000, (as estimated under section 5) in the semiannual period described in section 5(a) during which the registration would be made is not required to register under subsection (a) with respect to such client. Does anyone have an actual source backing up the claims of these bloggers? If it's a law it has to be out there somewhere. - Joe I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. - James Madison
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Gandol teh Pirate		#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2264 01-19-07 11:23 AM Time-traveling cultural Marxist	Lawrence Person writes "The attempt to require political bloggers to register as lobbyists previously reported by Slashdot has been stripped out of the lobbying reform bill. The vote was 55 to 43 to defeat the provision. All 48 Republicans, as well as 7 Democrats, voted against requiring bloggers to register; all 43 votes in favor of keeping the registration provision were by Democrats." edit: quote is headline from slashdot Without knowing the logic behind the proposal in the first place or the arguments for or against, I'm inclined to believe the Democratic majority were dead wrong on this provision and am glad 7 Dems came over to vote with the GOP against what amounts to a registration requirement on free speech and a free press.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Fishbeak		#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2329 01-19-07 11:31 AM	fatesdefiance wrote: Any time political money is being spent by an organization (as opposed to an individual), it absolutely should be disclosed to the public to prevent malfeasance. Except that is NOT what was being proposed. The requirement was for registering blogs that EARNED more than $25k - not SPENT more than $25k. Should we be accountable for earning money? WTF? Is this China? I haven't finished reading mah morning blogs to get confirmation that this was indeed killed, I hope so :) And Falk - please do argue any old thang you want - but remember your love of big government before you mewl about what a good conservative you are. You're not. You're a classic liberal with a socially conservative agenda. You argue in favor of damn near every new government regulation that hits this board. You turn to government to solve your problems more than Teddy Kennedy. Borofin's bitch
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Aielman KajiraLiege		#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4606 01-19-07 11:51 AM	Earned, spent...makes no difference to me. Lobby groups have far too much influence because of money. The more transparent they are forced to be, the better...whether or not they are large and well organized/funded like NRA, or A.N.S.W.E.R., or some half assed blogging group. peace, Aielman "There are no stupid questions...but there certainly are a LOT of inquisitive idiots" Husband, Father, Squisher of bugs. aka Bret
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Fishbeak		#21	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2329 01-19-07 12:44 PM	Earned, spent...makes no difference to me. Lobby groups have far too much influence because of money. Truly apples to oranges Aeil. Lobbying groups shower our pols with money in order to buy influence. Bloggers do not address our pols; they address us, the voters. Lobbying groups use money, trips, perks to basically bribe our elected officials. Bloggers try to influence voters. Lobbying is the essence of corruption. Blogging is grassroots democracy. Lobbyists have influence because of money. Bloggers have influence independent of money. In addition think of how this applies to social sites. Digg carries political stories all the time. They make more than $25k. They reach more than 500 people. Is Digg a lobbying org that needs to be registered with the government? What about craigslist? Fark? Somethingawful? Myspace? The list goes on and on. Borofin's bitch Last Edited By: Fishbeak 01-19-07 12:46 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Falkahnhan		#22	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2625 01-19-07 1:38 PM	Fish, I'd be concerned with you saying I'm not a "good conservative" if it weren't for the fact that you use labels to attack a person in an effort to change their opinion. Instead of staying focused on the issue you argue the person making claims like, "If you were a real conservative you wouldn't support <insert topic>." It's an attempt to make someone think, "Well, I'm conservative so I shouldn't support <insert topic>," instead of actually addressing why they shouldn't support whatever topic is being discussed. You've even gone so far as to claim that not supporting the government redefining marriage is being in favor of "big government." I honestly don't care whether or not you think I'm a "good conservative" but your labels aren't meaningful because they're not used to accurately identify something but to persuade a person without discussing their argument. This thread is a great example of how you use definitions to go after a person instead of showing why you're right. I asked how registration is a punishment and you respond with: Are we really gonna go around this again Falk - you arguing for more government regulation, me arguing against it? Didn't you just yesterday plop out some smary remark about my partisanship? Do I really need to remind you what a true conservative is, stands for? C'mon. Seriously, I hadn't made up my mind on this issue and was just wanting to know how registration was a punishment. - Joe I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. - James Madison
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Aielman KajiraLiege		#23	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4606 01-19-07 1:47 PM	Lobbying groups shower our pols with money in order to buy influence. Yes. And that shouldn't be allowed either. Bloggers do not address our pols; they address us, the voters. That's not true at all. Small-time bloggers do not address our pols. Andrew Sullivan, for example, speaks directly to politicians...and his readership is large enough, and influential enough, that not only does he get invited on talk shows to speak, but is someone to be taken seriously them. Other blogging groups are just as powerful and have just as much of a political ear. More than one politician has said they read blogspace...and more and more are creating their own blogs. Bloggers try to influence voters. Bloggers try to influence whatever they can. You are generalizing far too much. Lobbying is the essence of corruption. Wrong again. Lobbying is an essential part of the legislative process. Allowing lobbies to become bribery factories isn't part of the process, and should be divorced from the essential purpose of lobbies, which is information and advocacy. Lobbies are only bad if you allow them to be. Blogging is grassroots democracy. How many millions did Myspace sell for? Blogging is big business. Lobbyists have influence because of money. Again...big assumptions and broad generalizations. Lobbies have influence because they represent portions of a constituency. In this way they are exactly like bloggers. Money just greases the wheels. It allows the corruptible to be corrupted. Politicians will do dirty things for money...but they'll suck dick with a smile and swallow like a champ for votes. In any case, it's a comletely moot point unless you can prove some sort of censorship. Is Digg a lobbying org that needs to be registered with the government? No. They are a service...not a blog. They aren't raising money for political purposes, but to run a business. The individual blogger who raises money for political purposes, who has an audience, is a lobbying org that needs to be registered with the government. And the same applies to all the other services. peace, Aielman "There are no stupid questions...but there certainly are a LOT of inquisitive idiots" Husband, Father, Squisher of bugs. aka Bret Last Edited By: Aielman KajiraLiege 01-19-07 1:52 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Fishbeak		#24	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2329 01-19-07 2:33 PM	Lobbies have influence because they represent portions of a constituency. HA! Please direct me to the successful lobbying firm that does not dispense cash but rather merely appeals to pols with a heartfelt "Gee your constituency would like you to pass x bill". Lobbying is all about spending money. They are a service...not a blog. Under the proposed law (I still haven't confirmed this was killed) the requirement is not limited to blogs. And Digg meets all the outlined criteria. So does Fark. So does Myspace. On and on. The individual blogger who raises money for political purposes, who has an audience, is a lobbying org that needs to be registered with the government. And the same applies to all the other services. None of the blogs I read - even the political blogs - raise money for political purposes. They raise it to buy food, pay bills. It's how they make a living. None of the blogs I read has a "Donate money to x cause" box. Maybe the sites you frequent do? I agree that lobbying orgs need to be registered with the government - I do not agree blogs are lobbying orgs. Again; are Fark, Digg, this site, lobbying orgs? Who are they lobbying? Forget the social sites - what about policital blogs; who does wonkette lobby? Michelle Malkin lobby? These sites are not aimed at influencing pols directly they are aimed at influencing voters. How about when someone games Google results to produce some result to make x pol look bad or good? More than 500 people? Check. More than $25k. Check. Influences the public? Check. There is virtually no end to the ways this can be twisted up to fuck with people. I'll concede there may be exceptions, there may be bloggers that do actively lobby. We have existing laws governing lobbying and those laws should be followed. This new proposal is one of the dumbest things ever. oh and psst - you have a typo in your sig. Borofin's bitch
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking