Sb 1

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.

 

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....

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

But it did not become law. Why?

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

 

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.

 

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

 

It didn't become law. There would be no need to vote on it now if it had.

No answer yet.