Sb 1

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hillclimber1, Jan 19, 2007.

  1. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've spent a half hour looking for Senate bill 1 section 220 and can not find the text of it, can anyone point me in the right direction? Jamie referred to, and I found where that section was passed last year in its entirety, but I don't know what the text says.

    And why was that thread closed?
     
  2. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    296
    Pertaining to your subject:

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200701/POL20070119b.html

    Senate Passes Ethics and Lobbying Reform Bill
    By Susan Jones
    CNSNews.com Senior Editor
    January 19, 2007

    (CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Senate passed an ethics and lobby reform bill 96-2 on Thursday, and to the relief of conservative advocacy groups, the bill does not include restrictions on grassroots lobbying.

    Equally important to conservatives, the bill will force senators to attach their names to special interest projects for which they request funding.
     
  3. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hiya hillclimber1,

    I go to the Senate website and then click on the bill that is beign talked about. From there, you can click on the text of the bill. It's like reading Greek sometimes, and I think they do that on purpose!


    Here is the link to S.1, but in reading the article carpro posted, I am not sure if it passed as is, or if they changed/deleted some of the text. Again, the Greek part....


    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1:

    Jamie
    Congress should pass a law making it easy for us to see what they're doing....
     
  4. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    296
    http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=lb-110-1-2

    Senate's Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007

    Section 220. Disclosure of Paid Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying. S. 1 would amend the definition of “lobbying activities” in the LDA (2 U.S.C. 1602) to include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying but to not include grassroots lobbying. The legislation provides definitions for “grassroots lobbying,” “paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,” “paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof,” and “grassroots lobbying firm.” The legislation also identifies who is considered a member of a registrant entity. (See legislation for definitions.)

    The bill would not, however, include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in establishing the spending threshold that determines whether a lobbyist or firm must register under the LDA (2 U.S.C. 1603).

    The legislation would require a grassroots lobbying firm retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives no later than 45 days after retention.

    S. 1 would also amend the LDA (2 U.S.C. 1604) to require that quarterly reports from lobbyists or lobbying firms (including grassroots lobbying firms) include a good faith estimate of amounts paid to stimulate grassroots lobbying, including an estimate of the total amount related to paid advertising.

    Unlike reports associated with other lobbying activities, S. 1 would not require reports relating to grassroots lobbying activities to include a statement listing the congressional offices and federal agencies contacted by a registered lobbyist on behalf of a client or a list of employees who acted as lobbyists on behalf of the client.

    S. 1 would revise the estimating income or expenses provision of the LDA (2 U.S.C. 1604) such that estimates of amounts in excess of $10,000 will be rounded to the nearest $20,000. If, however, the estimate does not exceed $10,000, the registrant must include a statement to that effect. Further, for amounts paid to stimulate grassroots lobbying, estimates of amounts in excess of $25,000 would be rounded to the nearest $20,000. If the estimate does not exceed $25,000, the registrant must include a statement to that effect.

    For tax purposes, S. 1 would provide that the definition of “paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying” should be confined to those activities that are considered grassroots expenditures in section 4911 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as opposed to the new definition outlined in this section.
     
  5. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jamie,
    I was particularly interested in your statement that the 2006 legislature passed an exact copy of this bill, including the nonsense above. Can you show that to me.
     
  6. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will have to go back to the closed thread and get the link. I posted it there. The link was from the Republican Policy Committee website, and it stated the bill had the same text in it.

    LINK to RPC website

    LINK to where I posted this before

    Jamie
     
  7. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    That doesn't display the text from the 2006 legislative action. I don't believe the Republicans would have anything to do with it with this language in it. A more likely scenario to me, would be, if considered or passed at all, that the Democrats got behind it 95% and the few necessary RINO's voted too. But I can't prove it.
     
  8. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it doesn't. For that you would have to search the Senate site.

    The measure the RPC is talking about said it passed 90-8. That is a few more Republicans than the RINO's you mentioned.

    Since I haven't seen the bill itself, I don't know who sponsored it, but being it was a Republican lead congress, and they let little if any in that the Democrats wanted, I would guess it was the Republicans that presented/passed it.

    But, like you, I don't have proof. It doesn't really matter to me, with the exception of the simple fact that the sam text was voted on, by two different sessions of congress and only one had any fuss about it...

    Again, it doesn't matter to me... onward and upward...


    Jamie
     
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    296
    But it did not become law. Why?

    Strange. But I haven't found the answer yet.
     
  10. quidam65

    quidam65
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    It must pass both Houses of Congress. Whether SB 1 has been scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives I do not know. It is probable that a similar bill passed the House, and thus you have a conference committee to come up with a bill which irons out the differences.
     
  11. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if it became law or not. Like I said in the other thread that is closed, I am only going by what the RPC website has stated.

    I haven't taken the time to look up the bill from the 109th Congress.

    What did your representative say, that you were going to ask?

    Jamie
     
  12. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh well, it's just that it set off my BS detector.
     
  13. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    296
    It didn't become law. There would be no need to vote on it now if it had.

    No answer yet.
     

Share This Page

Loading...