Senate Bill S.1 has garnered a fair amount of controversy.  Intended to reform rules for lobbyists, it is in some ways a fair idea (and apparently a retread of a bill sponsored in the last session by Trent Lott).  It would put limits on lobbyists’ transactions with Congress.

The controversy comes from its attempts to classify blogs and bloggers as lobbyists:

Section 220 of the bill “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,” said [direct-mail campaigner Richard] Viguerie in a statement, but the truth isn’t that simple.

First, a couple of facts: though groups like the Family Research Council claim that “the liberal leadership in the US Senate seeks to silence groups like the Family Research Council,” the bill was actually cosponsored by Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the top Republican leader in the Senate. What’s more, the bill appears to be an exact reintroduction of last year’s S.2349, which was introduced by Trent Lott (R-MS) and actually passed the Republican-controlled Senate, complete with section 220.

The fact that Lott introduced it is hardly prima facie evidence that it’s a great idea.  But let’s proceed:

So much for the liberal plot. In fact, some liberal groups oppose the measure, including the ACLU. The group argues that the reporting requirements are “onerous” and that “people must be able to disseminate information, contact their representatives, and encourage others to do so as well.”

And with this, I agree with the ACLU.

More below:

Section 220 introduces a series of modifications to the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act. The most important is that “paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying” now counts as “lobbying” under certain circumstances…This is what has inspired claims that bloggers and activists of all stripes will suddenly be classed as lobbyists and will be monitored by the government.

Hm.  So is it a fact?

What the bill says, though, is that the rules only apply to people who are paid by clients to encourage the public to contact Congress about specific legislation. The rules do not apply to any communication directed at less than 500 people, they do not apply to any communication directed at a group’s current membership, and they do not impose any speech regulations (all that is required is a quarterly report describing where one’s money came from and what bills were worked on).

Would this apply to a political blogger? Not usually. Because section 220 is only a series of changes to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, that legislation’s other rules still apply. According to OMB Watch, a government accountability watchdog group, the LDA’s registration requirement is only triggered by groups that spend more than $24,500 on lobbying semiannually and employ a least one person who spends 20 percent or more of their work time on lobbying. The bill also concerns only the federal government; groups operating at the state level are exempt.

On the one hand, like most “Reform” legislation, it leaves more questions than answers; the big one for me is “do I fit in?”  I reach a lot more than 500 people, but I might make $50 a month in blogads, if I’m lucky.

This sort of thing is a two-edged sword.  On the one hand, more transparency in this sort of thing would be good – and it would be best to depend on the honesty of all involved.  I do, in fact, disclose every non-advertising nickel I get from this site.  Other sites’ financial underpinnings are a little fuzzier and closely held.

Still and all, there’s a chance it’ll come to naught:

Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT), though, is concerned that section 220 is overly broad. He has introduced amendment 20, which would kill section 220 but leave the rest of the bill intact. (As a sign of just how much interest the bill has received on Capitol Hill, it currently has 96 proposed amendments).

Worth watching.