Posted on 03/03/2006 12:51:19 PM PST by 300magnum
The U.S. Senate is moving to curtail the influence of non-profit interest groups that routinely contact citizens and urge them to petition their congressmen or senators on issues of concern.
The so-called Lieberman-Levin Amendment would impose "unconstitutional and unfair" restraints on non-profit grassroots lobbying activity, the Family Research Council warned.
The amendment passed the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Reform Committee by a 10-6 vote on Thursday, and it's heading for the Senate floor next week.
Groups such as the Family Research Council say it targets the wrong people. "Folks have a right to petition their government, and it's unfortunate that the Senate is poised to infringe on that right," the FRC said in a message on its website.
"The Lieberman-Levin amendment grants Congress the authority to scrutinize and regulate the constitutionally protected efforts of groups to alert citizens regarding legislative developments in Congress," said FRC President Tony Perkins in a message to supporters.
The amendment is part of a larger bill (S. 2128) intended to address concerns raised by the Jack Abramoff scandal. But the scandal should not be used as an excuse for incumbent lawmakers to encroach on basic constitutional liberties, the FRC said.
According to Perkins, the Lieberman-Levin amendment violates the constitutionally protected right of citizens to petition government, stifles debate, and shuts out the voice of average citizens.
"This amendment is a red herring," Perkins said. "It takes the focus off the corruption surrounding high paid lobbyists, and attempts to make non-profit citizen groups the whipping boy.
Perkins urged the full Senate to strip the "misguided" amendment from the lobbying reform bill, when the measure reaches the Senate floor.
Another grassroots group, Gun Owners of America, has described similar legislation as a "gag act." Grassroots advocacy groups would have to "register" their communications with citizens and "file twice as many frivolous reports," GOA warned last week.
"For example, if we wanted to alert you to gun ban that is moving in our nation's capital, we could first have to tell [Congress] about what we're planning to do, who we're planning to alert (that is, grassroots folks like yourself), how much money we plan to spend, etc.... In effect, we would end up alerting Sarah Brady every time we plan to wage a grassroots campaign in opposition to gun control."
GOA called the move to stifle grassroots mobilization "ridiculous."
What part of the phrase "free speech" do these people not understand?
Maybe it's the Senate's oblique way of saying they're fed up with a thousand copies of the same form email or fax coming from some non-profit with a bullhorn.
They don't want to hear from American citizens because they really don't give a crap what we think anyway.
This is total bullsh*t. I say if they fix it where they can't hear us then we don't vote period...for them or anyone else.
I'm sure that a lot of government officials, elected, appointed and hired, would like to abolish the first amendment. Looks as if some are trying harder than others.
Thanks a lot, Jorge :(
Sounds like there's more to it.
They understand that it doesn't put money directly in their pockets.
More likely they are fed up with the "little people" trying to get their attention when the lobbyists are dangling big bucks in their faces. That kind of interference can be very annoying. We had an outstanding example of that in the Texas legislature last year. I doubt that it is any different in any other legislative body.
Whole Bill-of-Rights thing kind of gets in the way of Socialism, eh.
Wow.. that's a hypocritical statement if I ever heard one.
If you don't want to be stifled in your speech than don't be a non profit.
Nobody forces you to be a non-profit.
So you just gave us the #1 excuse of all liberals.
I'm going to do it the way I want and then whine about it when I don't get everything I want.
Seems that way but not limited to socialism. Too many politicians feel that they have an "entitlement" to their elected office and will do anything to stifle competition. When free speech applies only to the office holders we no longer have freedom. That seems to be the goal of some office holders.
How many senate offices receive paper faxes. Would be interesting to know. If they have any substantial number they should receive them electronically. That way they can be filed and/or distributed easily.
Who were the 10 who voted against the First Amendment?
This bil is sponsored by 2 rats "Lieberman-Levin Amendment." It has no chance of passing the GOP controlled Senate or House and it will never see Dubya's desk. Thank God Republicans are in control.
I say "thanks" to him because it was his signature that emboldened further restrictions of our constitutional freedoms.
If, by some chance, it passes the GOP and makes it onto Jorge's desk, will you be worried?
Right. Before Dubya came along we were all following the letter of the Constitution.
If, by some chance, it passes the GOP and makes it onto Jorge's desk, will you be worried?
Yes because it will mean hell froze over. Your first sentence shows you hate Dubya as much as the rats. Your second shows you are a kook.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.