Posted on 01/18/2007 7:47:15 AM PST by neverdem
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has told conservative activists that he will vote to strip a key provision on grassroots lobbying from the reform package he previously supported.
The provision would require grassroots organizations to report on their fundraising activities and is strongly opposed by groups such as the National Right to Life Committee, Gun Owners of America, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
While grassroots groups on both sides of the political spectrum oppose the proposal, social conservative leaders such as Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, who broadcasts a radio program to hundreds of thousands of evangelical Christians, have been its most vehement critics.
McCain sponsored legislation last Congress that included an even broader requirement for grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. But now he will vote to defeat a similar measure.
It would be politically dangerous for McCain to support disclosure because it would anger many conservative activists, including those who advocate against abortion rights or for gun ownership rights. He is courting many of them for his 2008 presidential campaign. McCain’s presidential exploratory committee announced yesterday that Maxine Sieleman, a socially conservative leader who founded the Iowa chapter of Concerned Women for America, had joined its camp.
In letters circulated on Capitol Hill this week, the National Right to Life Committee and Gun Owners of America warned senators that votes on the grassroots lobbying provision would affect legislative scorecards they tabulate for each lawmaker.
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) has sponsored the amendment to the lobbying reform package that would strip the provision. His amendment is expected to come to the floor for a vote today, said advocates opposing it.
Bennett said he was “a little” surprised to hear that McCain would support him but was “delighted.” McCain is considered one of the most authoritative voices on ethics- and lobbying-related issues in the Senate.
“It’s a very high priority,” said Douglas Johnson, director of legislative affairs for the National Right to Life Committee. Johnson said ordinary grassroots activists from Arizona who had called McCain’s office were told by aides that he would support Bennett’s amendment.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, told The Hill that he had received confirmation from McCain’s staff yesterday that he would oppose the disclosure proposal.
“It’s huge,” Sekulow said of the issue’s importance. “It’s the most significant restriction on grassroots activity in recent history. I’d put it up there with the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.”
McCain was the chief sponsor of the landmark 2002 campaign finance bill, a history that still angers many conservatives. They cite McCain’s sponsorship of that legislation as something that makes them wary about supporting his presidential bid. But McCain’s recent action could redefine him.
“He’ll do everything he can to appeal to conservatives he has already tried to silence,” said John Velleco, director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America, referring to McCain’s support of campaign finance reform. “I think he’s trying to gain the support of conservatives as much as he can.”
“Romney’s doing the same thing,” Velleco added, explaining that McCain’s rival for the nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is re-evaluating his past positions on gun ownership rights.
While McCain has privately told conservative groups that he will side with them, he was not ready to reveal his position yesterday. He opened yesterday’s floor debate with a 15-minute speech on the lobbying reforms under consideration. While he urged his colleagues to support the creation of an office of public integrity, he made no mention of grassroots lobbying.
Immediately afterward he declined to state his position on grassroots disclosure.
“I’ll address it when it comes up,” he told The Hill.
But McCain’s spokeswoman, Eileen McMenamin, confirmed that he would support the Bennett amendment.
“Initially when Sen. McCain introduced legislation last year it had a grassroots provision,” she said. “Subsequent to that that he got a lot of feedback from groups that the requirements would be too onerous on them because of the reporting requirements.”
McMenamin added that a grassroots lobbying disclosure requirement was not included in reform legislation McCain introduced at the beginning of this month.
Johnson, of the National Right to Life Committee, said that there is confusion about which groups would be affected by the pending regulation.
“Under Section 220, anyone who is paid anything by an organization that spends any money at all to encourage more than 500 members of the general public to communicate with members of Congress, if he or she also has contacted congressional offices directly as few as two times, and has spent as little as 20 percent of his or her time on such direct lobbying and grassroots-motivating activities, would be required to register with Congress as a ‘lobbyist’ and file detailed quarterly reports,” wrote Johnson in a letter to Senate offices, adding, “If enacted, it will disrupt the constitutionally protected activities of thousands of issue-oriented citizen groups from coast to coast. …”
McCain’s past allies in battles to reform government strongly support disclosure and were surprised to discover his position had changed.
“We saw him supporting it last year,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen.
“It surprises me and it will surprise the rest of the reform community. I was really expecting him not to get involved in that provision and I had received no indication from his office that he was leaning against it.”
Bush did not weasel - read your statement of his comment.
McCain put his finger to the wind!
Vote? Don't you mean veto? The President doesn't get a "vote".
"We know it's unconstitutional. Why doesn't anyone say that?"
So was the CFR law. Still is.
"We have no one in Washington other than George Bush, the most hated man in the U.S.A."
Then conservatives have no one in Washington.
You're way off base. You, along with a number of others, don't appreciate how conservative this president is. Since 1932, there has been only one prez as conservative or more conservative than Bush, and that's Reagan. Ike, Nixon, Bush I, and Ford were all moderate Republicans. Kennedy was a somewhat conservative Democrat. Some people expect that every conservative pol will agree with them 100% of the time. On abortion, gun rights, taxes, judges, and other issues, they don't come any more conservative. Even though he's a big govt guy, I guarantee you that he's further to the right than any future president will be.
"He admit he's " = "You admin he's"
Governor Schwarzenegger Should Go to Nashville Re: Tenncare foolery and fraud
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
When judging someone's political bent, you should look at the entire spectrum of their views. The Prez is a staunch social conservative and a major tax cutter. That makes him conservative. If he believes in spending more money on fields like education, so be it. Even conservatives must be pragmatic. According to your rationale,someone like Rudy Giuliani could could be considered a right winger if he believed in small govt and had liberal social views. Just as long as he were a " fiscal conservative", right?
Among his many other faults, not the least of which is that he's two-faced, McCain hates the First Amendment and will do anything he can to stifle free speech. He's a nightmare.
Bump
Ah! I believe that would be McCain-Feingold.
And picking Miers wipes out all of the other conservative judges he selected, right? Like Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen. Like Sam Alito? Roberts? Not to mention dozens of others throughout the federal court system. Face it babe, that was the weakest part of your argument. And calling Islam a "religion of peace" is neither here nor there when assessing someone's political stripes. That was something stated for consumption in the Muslim world. After all, since we have troops in their thousands in two Muslim nations, it makes sense to reassure people of that faith that our fight isn't with their religion, but with extremists. Think about that.--Mark
And don't forget, Reagan had big deficits too, but our deficit is only 1.9% of GDP right now, where as in the 80s it averaged over 4%.
I have a certain nervousness about candidates who slide to the right to position themselves for a primary. I prefer candidates who START there and are firmly rooted.
"Imagine what he could have gotten done if he had had support of our elected GOP congress? But, lo, they prefer their buddies in congress and will squander their time attempting to please the democrats."
I'm no fan of the GOP. Actually, that's understating the point. In my view the GOP is the one organization in America most responsible for frustrating the hopes and aspirations of conservatives. Of course there are individual Republicans who are quite good and whom I admire.
One contrast between the Democrats and the Republicans is that my party does actually make some attempt to represent it's left wing constituency. The same cannot be said about the GOP and it's conservative constituency. Given the choice between a Democratic division in front of me and Republican division behind me, I'll take the Democratic division in front of me.
"What a waste of an opportunity, what a waste of the conservative donated money. All they are fit for is to pad their own pockets, to further their own careers and to undercut our agenda."
Pretty much. And it got to the point where their craven opportunism was noticed by even the most uninterested voters. That's the single biggest reason why the GOP lost the election.
It's interesting how the lamestream media as well as conservatives have bought into the lie that it was the war in Iraq that cost the GOP the 2006 election. The media's own election polls indicated that the biggest issue on voters minds was not Iraq, but corruption. But that seems to have been conveniently forgotten by a left wing that wants to retreat from Iraq and by a GOP that doesn't want to focus more attention on it's own internal mess.
"We probably would do better to quote the First Amendment exactly:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Thanks for posting. I like it so much, I posted it again!
And to think one of the founding fathers thought the Bill of Rights weren't necessary, since they were "obvious" from the rest of the Constitution. I shudder to think of what this nation would be like without them.
What is "obvious" changes over time.
And if you honestly think that trading Sosa to the Cubs was an honest answer, I've got a bridge to sell you...
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.