View Full Version : Senate Bill S1
melman
01-19-2007, 09:28 AM
The Ethics Reform Bill as it now stands stinks. Part of this bill sent to the senate has a provision that defines "grassroots lobbying" as "voluntary efforts by ordinary citizens to communicate their own views on an issue and to encourage others to do the same". This is really petitioning congress for the redress of grievances, to attempt to ban such action is unconstitutional. The entire bill is not a problem just this provision. An amendment sponsored by senator Bob Bennett would eliminate this attempt at infringing on first amendment rights of ordinary citizens. Lets do "reform" right call your senator at 202-224-3121 and ask them to support the Bennett amendment. If not then myself and many other citizens would be at risk for even posting this not on the internet. It would be labeled as "grassroots lobbying". This bill is called "S1" as that means the most important action so lets get it correct and NOT take rights away.
While the dems fo thier war dance over this one, it lays the ground work for loss of freedoms for all. One has to wonder, with all this flurry of legislation in under 100 hours (68?)......
WHO THE HELL READ EVERYTHING THE VOTED ON??????
Sec - you gota be outraged - you had hissy fits everytime Bush suggested anything to fight terrorism that could concievably restrict personal freedom. Does THIS not fall into that catagory?
Suff......how does this jive with the CONSTITUTION that you so valiantly defend>
I need some 'splanations here!
Not busting on you guys, but YOU set yourselves up as the experts, so I turn to youse for clarification.
While the right to address grievances is important. The terrorist's use these "rights" to infiltrate our country. You cannot address grievances if your DEAD!
Damn, don't you guys get it!! The terrorist's want to KILL US! One minute you let them address grievances and the next they will CUT YOUR HEAD OFF!!
I for one don't mind giving up a few "rights" so the children can live!
Who are you with? The Terrorists!!
:liar: :cool:
_----------------------------------------------------------------
Bennetts amendment was #220. It was voted for 55-43.
Basically if 100 people got together in a church basement and did a phone bank. S1 would have required them to report who paid for the phones, the call list, and any other mechanisms involved.
It was in direct response to an Abramoff tactic of giving an organization 200K and have them politic on behalf of a cause or candidate. It amounted to private & secret campaign financing. This one was amended, but they'll draft something more palatable soon.
Nobodys rights were at risk, it was simply an effort to make it more transparent.
Look it up. Truth.
Thought so. Thanks.
:lol:
melman
01-20-2007, 02:23 PM
Suff's doubletalk at it's best.
Suff's doubletalk at it's best.
????
Thats what the bill was. I read the thing. On other hand ,,,,You took something you got by e-mail, and cut and pasted it on to Paceadvantage because that instruction was also in the e-mail!
How do I know? I got the same e-mail. I watch everything Mel. I know what went down.
I read the bill. That was the language.
Here is a rally simple ethics proposal - no gifts, presents, contributions, rides, trips, meals, gum, tickets, dinners, or anything else from anybody - period.
Easy to remeber, and totally fair to all.
If elected official wnat to listen to people, perhaps they could start with thier contituents, not thier owners.
And just look at the voting record on this baby - high carumba! This obviously cannot be good for normal people! :lol:
When I heard the senate was voting on ethics, I thought they were voting whether or not to have any. :rolleyes:
melman
01-20-2007, 04:04 PM
Truth is I recevied NO e-mail on this subject and I did NOT cut and paste anything. The amendment passed.
Truth is I recevied NO e-mail on this subject and I did NOT cut and paste anything. The amendment passed.
It did pass, 55-43 as I said. You and the ACLU were on the same side on this one. I saw a discussion on it at BlueMassGroup last night.
The only real interest I had in the bill was earmark reform. I had read it at DailyKos a few days ago.
I don't know why you said I spoke double speak? The terrorist stuff was a joke. The rest of the post was 100% legit. The issue was they picked some number out of the sky (it was 500) and tried to pass a law that would effect anyone who impacted, solicited or lobbied more than 500 people. Bloggers, and internets posts like yours that would be viewed by 500 people would have been subject.
It was bad law. It needed to be cleaned up. It will be and it will be back in a better form.
melman
01-20-2007, 07:12 PM
Suff says "It was a BAD law". "It needed to be cleaned up". Which is exactly what I said in starting this thread. This after saying I "got an e-mail" and did what I was instructed to do. Which is of course a false statement. I welcome the bill for the most part (the "earmarks" section is very good). Since the ACLU agreed with me on this part of the bill I guess it's now OK to think that I really was thinking for myself when posting and not part of "being instructed to do so".
....and the march of the lemmings begins. :D:D:D
singunner
01-20-2007, 08:03 PM
Suff,
I read the bit about requiring people who have more than 500 readers to register too. The way I read it, if you have more than 500 readers AND are receiving over 25,000 dollars per quarter, you would have to register. The 25,000 isn't donations from your readers either. It was designed to track down the handpuppets who act like they're real people but are just spouting whatever lines they're fed while pretending to be a real, concerned citizen. It's what most political bloggers actually are.
I thought it was a good idea, but in the end, some sensationalist bloggers (likely paid by government officials) got the public and others thinking it was designed to impede on our free speech. It was just designed to monitor lobbyists' money (which is already required by law). The republicans +8 democrats shot it down (if I recall correctly).
C'est la vie. Just means you can't trust everything you read on the internet (not like that was going to stop being the case anyways).
Design and implementation are two different things.
singunner
01-20-2007, 09:47 PM
Design and implementation are two different things.
You're right. It's better to lay in bed and slowly die because what you intend to do might not turn out right.
melman
01-20-2007, 10:19 PM
So I guess then that the ACLU was "taken in" by "puppets" when they also did not agree with parts of the bill. Makes them paid by government agents. Although I seldom agree with the ACLU, I know they are much smarter than that.
singunner
01-21-2007, 01:54 AM
Here (http://http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/2007/01/blogger_registr.html)
Sorry to burst your bubble. This guy will explain it to you in nice simple language. He's a law professor at UCLA. If I gotta take the letters "L", "C", "U" and "A", I'll have to say that "UCLA" sounds a lot smarter than "ACLU".
Suff says "It was a BAD law". "It needed to be cleaned up". Which is exactly what I said in starting this thread. This after saying I "got an e-mail" and did what I was instructed to do. Which is of course a false statement. I welcome the bill for the most part (the "earmarks" section is very good). Since the ACLU agreed with me on this part of the bill I guess it's now OK to think that I really was thinking for myself when posting and not part of "being instructed to do so".
Mel
I did'nt say anything in support of the measure. Read my post again. I said
This one was amended, but they'll draft something more palatable soon.
Nobodys rights were at risk, it was simply an effort to make it more transparent.
To which you said "Suff double talk".....
That's when I came over the top with the e-mail comment. For which I apologize. If you look at my post it was primarily in response to Tom's question about rights. Not in opposition of Bennetts amendment.
Here (http://http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/2007/01/blogger_registr.html)
Sorry to burst your bubble. This guy will explain it to you in nice simple language. He's a law professor at UCLA. If I gotta take the letters "L", "C", "U" and "A", I'll have to say that "UCLA" sounds a lot smarter than "ACLU".
Your link has one to many http's in it.
working
http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/2007/01/blogger_registr.html
melman
01-21-2007, 12:53 PM
This from that radical right wing group the ACLU. Caroline Fredickson, director ACLU's washington office. "The bill goes WAY TO FAR, this gets at the citizen groups who are really the ones making their voices heard about our democracy" I guess she and the team of lawyers at the ACLU are easy to be fooling by "puppets" who are paid bloggers by some unnamed (of course unnamed) government agency. I guess all the ACLU lawyers went to low class law schools, like Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown. This bill is still not a done deal as the House and Senate will have to meet to work out the differance in the bills. The amendment that passed in the Senate was a big step forward to a better bill.
Like the DNC doens't pay bloggers?
I'm quite sure some here are paid to dish out the crap they peddle in OT.
You can pretty much tell by looking at it that it was copy/paste stuff, NOT discussion. One of them can't even tell what thread to put his garbae in - just hunts for key words. Proably can't read - just memorized a few! Not that that is a Handcicap. :lol:
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.