posted
Assume it's civil: the blogger is sued. In discovery, the name of his employer is requested. It would almost certainly be discoverable.
Assume it's criminal: the prosecutor issues a subpoena requesting the name. If the defendant takes the fifth, his records can be siezed.
I'm still curious as to why these types of arrangements carry greater risk of fraud or whatever it is you're worried about.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like the idea of unnamed, masked groups with big pockets being able to fund leagues of bloggers who can and will probably do and say pretty much whatever they want.
They might lie left and right, and it is certainly against the law, and is actionable, but that assumes there's someone out there to actually catch all the laws they break when they do it. Not much point in making something against the law when you aren't willing to commit the manpower to enforce it. The government certainly won't be doing it, which leaves the responsibility to the average Joe to detect the fraud where it occurs, and to then pass it on to law enforcement, who with all their spare time, will act on it immediately.
The scenario sounds incredibly skewed in favor of the guy with all the money, and against the guy just trying to get some facts.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of "Amateur" stuff is really professionally produced with an amateur look, guys like the voyeur girl next door thing and people like that just folks stuff, that is why I am afraid Hillary will lose, Bill was one of the good old boys whatever he did, but Hillary is all polished and sharpened, nobody is going to like her.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:They might lie left and right, and it is certainly against the law
What lying is against the law? Fraud is, certainly, but most lying isn't.
quote:Not much point in making something against the law when you aren't willing to commit the manpower to enforce it. The government certainly won't be doing it, which leaves the responsibility to the average Joe to detect the fraud where it occurs, and to then pass it on to law enforcement, who with all their spare time, will act on it immediately.
I still can't figure out what knowledge of the source of funding does here to help enforcement. If they're not going to catch the liars (and, again, not all lying is against the law), why will knowing Exxon is involved make a difference?
quote:The scenario sounds incredibly skewed in favor of the guy with all the money, and against the guy just trying to get some facts.
The same imbalance occurs in all the other possible blog-based fraud. Why is this special?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, when cigarette companies came out and said their product isn't bad for you, the hullaballoo wasn't about the ad agency they used, was it?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually it was. The fact that cigarette makers secretly funded professionals to pose as independent leaders of "pro-smoking clubs" which naysayed the adverse health effects of tobacco well after those same companies had agreed to print health warnings on packages was used to prove both legal malfeasance and legal malice in the civil lawsuits against "big tobacco" companies.
Dag's argument is that those who are doing the blogging are not lobbyists because they are one step removed from the lobbying process.
However, what blogger-boy is doing is providing something for the politician in order to influence his votes--eyeballs, votes, people. These are things of value to a politician. When blogger-boy goes up to Ms. Senator and says I have 4 million readers and we will vote for you if you support project A, that is in many ways similar to Mr. Z saying I have 4 million dollard and we will go to you if you support project A. The people want to know what company is supporting Blogger-boy and Mr. Z, to make sure there is no conflict of interest.
But that's not why Dag is wrong.
Dag is arguing that since the current definition of Lobbyist does not include third party motivators, they should not be regulated like lobbyists.
But the People, many of them anyway, as seen by the turnout on this thread, do not like it when some one con's them into a political opinion, and political action, based on hidden payments. These People have convinced enough legislators that the law, and the definition of Lobbyist, will be changed if the law passes.
So, the argument X is not Y so the Law is wrong will be shot down because the law trumps our definitions and will make x=y.
Why Dag is right:
And I don't mean conservative. The answer to that question is one only Dag could answer.
I mean why he is right about this amendment being wrong. It is to weak to do what we need, and to powerful a risk to do what we don't.
Blogger Boy is now getting $50K a year from Exxon. This law goes into effect. Blogger-boy will suddenly be getting $50K a year from "The Patriotic American Small Business Consortium" a new non-for-profit organization funded by Exxon.
Blogger-Boy puts down where he gets his money, and the PASBC doesn't. We, the readers, never discover Blogger-boys cash insentive that drives his agenda.
However, Peaceful Pam wants to protest the war and the current administration. She had to close it to go to work for a living. She was taking donation to keep her blog running, but the names of all the donators were public knowledge. Hawkish pro-war radicals started demonstrating in front of anybody who donated. Most of her money came from a big food coop, but a local conservative action committee, backed by a competitor through a secret donation front, started picketting and boycotting them.
In other words, the law closed down a true grass roots effort, while allowing a bogus one to afford to find the loopholes it needed.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag is arguing that since the current definition of Lobbyist does not include third party motivators, they should not be regulated like lobbyists.
Well, no, Dag is arguing that the only thing that possibly justified requiring registration - direct contact with elected officials who have reporting requirements - is not present. It's not definitional, but justificational. (Yes, I totally made up a word. )
A law criminalizing yelling "Fire" in an empty forest is not made constitutional or good because there's only one difference between that and yelling fire in a crowded theater. The reason for the previous regulation must be examined. In the "Fire!" case, the reason is danger of stampede and associated injuries/death. In the lobbying case, the reason is the direct contact with the legislators.
The thing that I hate the most about both campaign finance regulation and the regulation at issue here is that it makes expression with intent to influence politics suspect.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
