220 Eighty-Sixed

Yesterday the Senate passed a lobbying reform bill without that pesky Section 220, which, in combination with various arcane provisions of existing lobbying law, could have been read to require political activists and bloggers to register and file reports as lobbyists. Read my post from yesterday to see my puzzlement giving way to vague understanding, which no doubt eventually would have become outrage had the threat not already been averted.

Comments

Cab | January 19, 2007, 11:44am | #

And a Republican introduced the amendment to kill section 220. Wait a minute, how can it be a good thing if a Republican did it? I'm confused. This whole "benefits of a divided government" thing just might have some merit. Somebody ought to do a cover story on it.

Sam Franklin | January 19, 2007, 12:24pm | #

This would have been disasterous for reasonOnline and HnR. that's for sure.

Pig Mannix | January 19, 2007, 1:17pm | #

And a Republican introduced the amendment to kill section 220.

And all 43 votes to keep it came from the Democrats.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

R C Dean | January 19, 2007, 1:24pm | #

I'm wondering just what restrictions on my free speech passed while we all had our eye on Section 220.

Madog | January 19, 2007, 1:26pm | #

It's because there are a large number of Democrats and activists out there who think that Republicans can't get grassroots support without paying for it. They seem to think that all right-leaning blogs are being secretly funded by the RNC to make it look like people actually support the Republicans.

Which is clearly impossible, as all of their friends are liberals & Democrats...

J sub D | January 19, 2007, 1:30pm | #

Politicians/leglistor should be placed in an isolation booth so nobody can influence them. Short of that, lobbying will continue. Just an uncomfortable fact.

jf | January 19, 2007, 1:31pm | #

I couldn't help but notice that beloved freshman libertarian Democrats Tester and Webb were among those who voted no.

jf | January 19, 2007, 1:32pm | #

Um, voting no meant to keep the amendment, btw. I get confused sometimes.

Kwix | January 19, 2007, 1:57pm | #

Almost cleanly along party lines. Big suprise there. If the amendment to repeal had been introduced by a Democrat, any takers on how many Nays would have been cast by Republicans. Same shit, different term.

Cab | January 19, 2007, 2:14pm | #

The great Jim Webb voted no to strike Section 220, huh. Isn’t he supposed to be a “Renaissance Man,” or something? I’m sure I’ve read that somewhere.

Well, at least he held out for a while before following Reid lock, stock, and barrel. This was what, Senate Bill number 38 or something like that.

UPDATE: This was Senate Bill No. 1, not 38.

R C Dean | January 20, 2007, 8:03am | #

Hey, just checking in on that liberaltarian alliance. Is it just me, or did the Dems just check in on the side of less free speech?

matt | January 20, 2007, 2:33pm | #

What? Democrats against free speech?

Stop the presses!

Sam Franklin | January 22, 2007, 12:37pm | #

did the Dems just check in on the side of less free speech?

less free speech, greater transparency, potayto, potahto . . .

jf | January 23, 2007, 7:52pm | #

Nice try on the last word, Sam.

Regulation free speech != transparency. I'm for fully unregulated, fully transparent speech, monetary contributions, and blowjobs. I think the other libertarians around here would agree.