An article in the National Journal ($$), "A Two-Front War Over Lobbying", makes the very interesting point that lobbyists are pleased in light of grassroots lobbying disclosure falling from the Senate ethics and lobbying reform bill. The article pairs the loss of grassroots lobbying disclosure and the Supreme Court's decision to take up the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) case as both key victories for lobbyists. Thematically the two issues concentrate on the regulation of political speech and advocacy. "But both matters turn on the same thorny question, one that complicates all efforts to regulate political and policy activity. That is, how can the rules best foster transparency and accountability while protecting the First Amendment?" First with grassroots lobbying, the article makes clear the point OMB Watch has been emphasizing, that the intent of disclosure is not meant to target the average citizen activist. Lobbyists do not simply contact and network with lawmakers, "interest groups also launch what critics call "Astroturf" lobbying drives that dump millions into ads, phone banks and direct mail, all aimed at ginning up a blitz of "grassroots" e-mails and phone calls to Congress." Registration or reporting of this activity is not legally required. Again as OMB Watch has asserted, the provision ultimately failed to be a part of the Senate bill because of its unclear language and has offered revisions. Reform advocates will now push for better disclosure rules when the House takes up lobbying legislation -- but only after tightening up the language. They will need to make crystal clear that the rules apply only to five-figure lobbying campaigns, not to low-budget petitions from average citizens." Connecting grassroots lobbying disclosure to the WRTL case that challenges the ban on "electioneering communications" is positioned within an outcry of free speech. In both cases, the distinction needs to be made between something genuine (an actual grassroots campaign or issue advocacy) versus simulated (campaign or ad with other intentions). The article makes an excellent connection, and shows how the two can influence the other: But the Senate's rejection of new disclosure rules comes at a bad time. The lobbying industry has redefined itself, and much activity now goes unreported. If the Supreme Court rolls back restrictions on election-time issue ads, the need for better disclosure will only grow.