U.S. senators are trying to place federal control over virtually all grassroots lobbying activity. This means that all organizations and groups that encourage people to call their congressmen will be subject to registration and reporting to Congress.

Section 220 of Senate Bill 1 (S. 1), the "Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007," redefines lobbying to include "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." Organizations that engage in grassroots lobbying will have to comply with all federal lobbying disclosure laws, including registration with Congress and the filing of quarterly reports to Congress. Failure to comply would result in a fine of up to $100,000.

Currently, organizations do not need to report grassroots lobbying, which is when they contact their membership and the public or engage in some action that encourages people to call their federally elected officials. However, if Section 220 is included in S. 1, federal lobbying laws would apply to all groups that spend money to reach more than 500 people with a message urging them to contact their elected officials. For example, if a church or homeschool support group has a paid employee who emails more than 500 people asking them to call Congress about some issue, or puts an article on the Internet that is likely to reach more than 500 people, the church or homeschool support group would be subject to federal lobbying laws.

Senate Bill 1 is a bipartisan bill and contains much-needed congressional reforms. Section 220, however, is not needed. It is unacceptable for Congress to attempt to require groups that encourage grassroots lobbying to be subject to registration and reporting to Congress.

Senator Robert Bennett has introduced an amendment cosponsored by Senator Mitch McConnell to strike section 220 from S. 1. The amendment could come up for a vote on the floor of the Senate as early as next Tuesday.

If you do not want this type legislation, then consider calling your U.S. senators and urge them to support the Bennett amendment (amendment 20) to S. 1.

Grassroots lobbying in danger in the senate

The following quoted material is a post by UPI intelligence corespondent Richard Sale on Ret. Colonel W. Patrick Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis blog. Sale does not reveal any of his sources, so there are questions about its accuracy.

Contrary to the bland stories in The New York Times and Washington Post of Friday, Negroponte did not go voluntarily to State from his job as director of intelligence. In fact, there was tremendous administration pressure to get him out of his current job. The chief cause of the quarrel involved Negroponte's balking at at request from Vice President Cheney to increase domestic collection by the National Security Agency on U.S. citizens.

Well, this is certainly interesting.

Sic Semper Tyrannis 2007: Sale on Negroponte Move

"BARNEVELD, Wis. — With an estimated 400,000 members nationwide, and a high-profile fight with the federal government over veterans' grave markers, Wiccans are moving into a more prominent place in the religious landscape.

I'm not sure why this had to turn into a lawsuit given the current diversity of allowed symbols.

Goal of Lawsuit for Wicca: Acceptance

I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

This is an official communication.

GOP Rep is a bigot

The Army has just updated its counterinsurgency manual; it includes an appendix on "Social Network Analysis and Other Analytical Tools".

FM 3-24: Counterinsurgency

The short version of things, is that they've stopped the investigation, due to a lack of evidence of criminal intent on my part. They've given me back my passports, my computers, and I'll be getting the rest of my stuff back shortly. Essentially, I'm a free man - with no charges filed.

Cheers!

Christopher Soghoian is no longer under investigation

flynn23 wrote:
You could provide universal health care but you'd have to radically re-align the system so that stakeholders compete based upon outcomes (ie results) instead of treating based upon episode and billing fee for service. This would not provide a system where every citizen would get the same "level" of health care service, but it would provide that every citizen would get quality affordable service based upon a tiering of cost per outcome. So the poor would get results, but the rich would get them faster, with more bells and whistles, and more conveniently at a higher price. Much like any other product or service you procure today.

Flynn23 provides some interesting insight into tackling the problems with our healthcare system.

RE: Nobel economist Milton Friedman dead at 94 - Nov. 16, 2006

flynn23 wrote:
That's what you would put at the top of your list? What about reversing the Constitutional damage caused over the last 6 years? Bolstering our resolve on torture, wire tapping the populace, detaining 'illegal combatants', and reforming the Patriot Act to make some sense would be at the top of my list.

What do you expect to see here? I think things will be more reserved, and I'm very happy about that, but the President will veto anything substantial. The debate over the Surveillance bill ought to be very different. They might even let the court challenge proceed. The President cannot force them to stop it. But they won't impeach him for violating FISA. More process around National Security Letters would be nice, but they might let the court challenge complete. If the President has to come back to Congress they'll be more likely to be able to do what they want than if they pass a modification he doesn't need and doesn't want. I don't think they will reverse the recent suspension of haebus for green card holders, as much as I think they should. The President would veto that.

Basically, I think they'll now begin serving their Constitutional role as a check upon the President. But I don't think they're in a position to do much more, and worse, I don't think a Democratic President would do more. Politicians only advocate civil liberties when they aren't in power.

Follow that with a reasonable exit plan for Iraq and a strategy for North Korea and Iran. It would also be helpful if we could work out a deal with Pakistan. How about 'unilateral trade' in exchange for one dead 6'4" diabetic?

I think these are things that the administration mostly does. They will start asking hard questions about Iraq, and thats good, because the administration will have less room to ignore smart advice. Again, a check, but no more.

Next on the list would be massive educational reform to give our society the tools and training necessary to be competitive for the next 40 years. Closely followed with a rebuilt health care system that is outcomes and quality aligned, rather than pockets lined. A new resolve around alternative energy, with a 10 year mandate of reducing dependance on foreign petroleum by 50% seems like a reasonable goal. Probably not as hard as putting a man on the moon in 10 years.

All of these things would be nice, but my pessimism says that I don't think they'll get any further with heathcare than the Republican's got with social security. You're asking for real leadership on domestic issues!

To cap it off, campaign finance and voting procedure reform - call it the Democracy for the 21st Century Bill - would be in order. Open source and peer reviewed tools and processes for elections as well as stricter campaign finance laws closing the loop holes and getting the corporations and lobbyists out of the process.

We just had a round of cf reform. I'm not convinced it did well. I don't think I should be able to go on the Internet and figure out which political party my coworkers donated money to, and I'm not convinced the restrictions on speech aren't, well, restrictions on speech. I think we need to find a way to get people to stop voting on partisan lines and start objectively evaluating candidates based on voter guides. The marketing dollars are only going to replaced with substantive dialog to the degree that people stop responding to marketing and start looking for substantive dialog. Basically, I think we are as much the problem as they are. The culture of politics needs to change. But how do you do that?

RE: What should be on the Dems agenda?

Rattle writes:

Being strong on security means exposing a problem and addressing it, not covering it up by punishing the messenger.

"The nail that sticks up gets hammered down." It's one of those phrases that embodies a principle that means different things in different situations, to different people. When a person exposes a problem, is the problem the problem, or is the person the problem? I believe that people of knowledge and ability are our greatest assets.

I think this is directly relevant to what we see unfolding before our eyes right now. On one hand, I have massive respect for the law enforcement agencies that tackle security problems. On the other, I fear their potential to be reactionary rather than mindful of purpose.

If we are to achieve real security, we can not simply opt for the path of least resistance. We must tackle problems rather than brush them under the rug, where they still exist, and can be found by others. As many on this system can attest, exposing security problems is like donning a big target; few are happy to see the messenger.

The manor in which information about a vital problem is exposed must be done ethically, but it is important to remember that ethical (or responsible) disclosure is an area that has no clear black and white distinctions. Many of the gray areas are defined by the means of the messenger. Do not lose sight of the big picture.

Being strong on security...

Having spent time getting to know young British Muslims, I believe that comments like Mr. Straw’s will be counterproductive. That is because the niqab is a symptom and not a cause of rising tensions.

"The young women who choose to wear the niqab, Mr. Rehman told me, are "rebelling against what their parents tell them to do, they’re trying to differentiate themselves.”

Following up on the "let it go" thread. This article offers some perspective...

Covered Faces, Open Rebellion