Hmmm I’ve read a little about this on US blogs, it may not be as frightening as it appears. Besides if they tried that over here they’d face serious outrage that would probably unite bloggers as never before, and if that failed we could all declare our selves non partisan and flip em the finger that way.;)

I agree with Leon. Grassrootsfreedom.com is run by Richard Viguerie, “the direct mail titan of the right”.

According to Informantion Week, the legislation only applies to those being paid at least $25,000 per quarter for their lobbying activities. I think that may shed some light on Mr Viguerie’s motivations for spreading this story.

The clause would have applied to persons engaging in “grassroots lobbying” who had a registered client paying $25,000 a quarter. Anyway, it didn’t make it into the final draft, so is in any case moot.

I saw the same article this morning. I didn’t quite know what to make of it so I sent the links to an American blogger I know, who intturn sent it to Robert Cox, head of Media Bloggers Association. He’ll get back to me when he gets a reply. He also confirmed what Garry said about Richard Viguerie.

I appreciate what everyone’s saying about Ricahard Viguerie, etc. but what concerns me here is not particularly the specifics of what’s been tried in the US but the underlying ‘principle’ of this and how, given the right ‘motivation’ that might readily be transplanted to the UK.

I don’t see this as a direct threat - as Alex has pointed out, it didn’t make the final draft (although that’s no guarantee of ’safety’ as clauses have been cut before only to be reintoduced at a late stage) - but it does represent an attempt to regulate political blogging and carries with it the ’suggestion’ that such a thing might be possible.

It’s not such a big mental leap from politicos appreciating that bloggging is a useful campaign tool to the view that blogging during election periods equals political campaigning and, therefore, should be treated like other campaign ‘literature’ and be accounted for and regulated by the Electoral Commission, especially as more and more party-specific networks emerge.

It’s the idea behind this (failed) clause that’s potentially damaging not the implementation.