This noteworthy blog posting at "The Questionable Authority," addresses the notion that the grassroots lobbying provision stripped from S.1 would have included bloggers. It clarifies that any blogger advocating federal legislation would not have to register and report under the Lobby Disclosure Act (LDA). One might not expect a blog written by a graduate student studying Zoology to cover such an issue, but these postings are definitely worth reading. Why bloggers would not be affected by such legislation is explained along with why the issue is worth discussing. At a time when we are faced with increasingly complex issues that we must deal with, and that can only be successfully managed through open and honest discourse, these groups move in like a squid, darkening the waters and providing concealment. These groups are the tools that interest groups - some for profit, some not-for-profit - use to influence the public to support or oppose specific positions on specific issues, while hiding their own involvement in the effort. The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) references the above blog as "nasty" to those that oppose grassroots lobbying disclosure. CCP charges that proponents of grassroots lobbying disclosure are simply pessimistic of American voters as incapable of differentiating the anonymous messages between either genuine or fraudulent advocacy. However such a distinction is particularly hard when groups have such names that begin with "Citizens for" or "Seniors for". As is commented here; They will consist of a small number of paid employees (who are or have been paid employees of an amazing number of other issue advocacy groups). They will have a lot of money, most of which will come from the pharmaceutical industry in one form or another. We won't know this for sure for a while, though, because the issue will be over with long before any IRS filings are due.