Posted on 12/15/2006 6:03:14 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Great point.
It always starts with registration.
Perhaps these groups should all be forced to wear an "X" or something, so they can be easily identified...
For Pelosi and company, this is par for the course.
This move by Pelosi is simply an extension of what John McCain has been plotting.
http://www.gunowners.org/mc527.htm
John McCain's Lobbying Reform Provisions Unconstitutional And Would Protect Corruption
by Mark Fitzgibbons
Editor's note: trashing the First Amendment rights of groups like GOA in 2002 with the infamous McCain-Feingold law -- better known as the Incumbent Protection Act -- wasn't enough for Sen. McCain. He's back for more in 2006 with S. 2128, the Gag Act.
Proposed regulation of the grassroots, such as Section 110 of S. 2128 (the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act), with similar provisions in counterpart bills before the House of Representatives, would harm America.
Not only does such regulation abridge freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people to peaceably assemble, to petition the Government for redress of grievances, and to exercise our respective faiths, but such regulation would actually protect the corruptive influences that these lobbying and ethics reform bills are purportedly intended to fix.
Through the grassroots, citizens across the country assemble peaceably, though perhaps not always politely, on political and social matters of importance to them. The problems Congress purports to cure through its recent efforts are the quid pro quo of legislation for gifts or other "consideration." Whatever the problems inside the Beltway, none of those problems can be blamed on too much citizen participation in public policy matters. Any efforts to regulate the grassroots, therefore, are misplaced.
The grassroots, of course, are the People. They are whom Justice William Brennan called "citizen-critic[s] of government." More than merely critics of government, the grassroots are populist means of criticizing corporations, even entire industries. They are critics of the institutional, mainstream media as well as critics of the new and alternative media. Grassroots organizations are critics even of other grassroots organizations.
S. 2128 would require registration and reporting of "paid" efforts to "stimulate" the grassroots. Section 110 of the bill defines these as efforts "to influence the general public... to contact one or more... legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials... to take specific action" on matters of public policy. "Attempts to influence" 500 or more citizens by any person or entity receiving or spending $25,000 or more in any quarter trigger these grassroots lobbying registration and reporting requirements.
The thresholds triggering registration and reporting may be met by the placement of just one media ad or just the postage for one direct mail letter mailed nationally. It is not merely that these thresholds are low; they are unconstitutional. These provisions directly violate the "constitutional rights" identified in 2 U.S.C. 1607(a) of the underlying lobbying registration statute that S. 2128 amends (not that constitutional rights need statutory recitation of the fact that they exist). What possibly could have made these constitutional rights fall out of favor since 1995, when the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities bill was first passed?
The registration requirements are a prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights, and the reporting requirements are burdens on such rights, with civil and even criminal sanctions in some of the legislative proposals for failure to register and report. Registration is a prior restraint because failure to register within a set period of agreeing to engage in such rights sets off penalties. Speech and press rights must therefore obtain government clearance in advance of communications being issued.
James Madison, in describing the distinction between the American version of a free printing press versus the British version, said that
a law inflicting penalties on printed publications would have a similar effect with a law authorizing a previous restraint on them. It would seem a mockery to say that no laws should be passed preventing publications from being made, but that laws may be passed for punishing them in case they should be made.
Section 110 of S. 2128 is a prior restraint. Section 106 of the bill amending 2 U.S.C. 1606 would create substantial penalties for that to which all Americans have guaranteed and constitutionally protected rights "paramount to laws," as Madison said.
Such regulation would stifle speech, but more so, it would effectively censor small, start-up and unpopular causes already strapped for cash. These bills would treat small and unpopular citizen causes the same as large corporations hiring high-priced K Street lobbyists, and would penalize or completely shut out some of the most valuable means of citizens protecting their own freedoms.
It is well-settled law that paid efforts to engage in First Amendment rights merit no fewer constitutional protections than unpaid volunteer efforts. Journalists who receive paychecks are no less protected than unpaid bloggers.
The paid ads of the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King "communicated information, expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought financial support on behalf of a movement whose existence and objectives are matters of the highest public interest and concern." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 266 (1964). Such "editorial advertisements," of course cost money to prepare, to place, to print and to disseminate. They are "the promulgation of information and ideas by persons who do not themselves have access to publishing facilities -- who wish to exercise their freedom of speech even though they are not members of the press." Id.
There are many other examples, too long to list in this letter, of why "paid" efforts to engage in protected First Amendment activity are not only as protected constitutionally, but are as important and as valuable as unpaid efforts. For example, paid efforts to circulate petitions are "core political speech" subject to the "zenith" of First Amendment protections. See, Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 421–422 (1988). The bottom line is that First Amendment protections of speech, the printing press, petitioning and association rights are not lost merely because it costs money to communicate in today's world of mass media.
Regulating "paid" efforts to stimulate grassroots activity merely gives the appearance that Members of Congress and their respective Republican and Democratic Party committees would prefer for their own professional political consultants to have a leg up in the marketplace of ideas and donations. Members of Congress may already send communications at taxpayer expense under their "free" franking privileges, and as 535 of the most important people in the country, easily have more access to express their views for free through the mainstream media.
Costs of compliance with quarterly reporting requirements will effectively reduce the ability of marginal grassroots efforts to communicate, and will silence cash-strapped unpopular causes. Corporations and large, established causes that are already wealthy will be able to comply. Thus, your bills would effectively silence some critics and allow the wealthier ones to communicate. Such censorship through regulation merely protects the corruptive influences inside the Beltway.
Since the apparent ethics issues are the quid pro quo, it seems that a better solution, and certainly one without constitutional prohibitions, would be to require Members of Congress who sponsor legislation or amendments to sign, under penalties of perjury, that such legislation is submitted without gifts or promises of some consideration.
The expansion of the grassroots these past 40 years has empowered Americans, and that is a good thing. The grassroots are the very antithesis of corruptive influences inside the Beltway. Whatever the solution to the complex problems of congressional ethics, a vote to regulate the grassroots would be the equivalent of a vote to protect the corruptive influences.
I guess Al Gore should have thought of that when he invented it.....
I feel strongly that is what primaries are for and too many people ignore.... once the primary is passed it's time to support the party candidate -- in the case of PA, Santorium. However, a lot of people threatened to stay home or jump ship and it appears exactly that happened. IMO it's a very sad state of affairs we lost two excellent Senators last month, one in a race that was so close, a few more people showing up would have made a difference and a difference in the makeup of the senate.
I think we, all, are going to pay dearly for the fair weather voters.
That is absolutely wrong;... we still have a Republican President for the next 2 Years(i sure hope he finds his veto pen), a wobbly Senate balance and to top it off, the fact that not every Democrat is subscribing to Pelosi's point of view.
Not to mention the fact, that, if Republicans grow some spine we might have an absolute rebar reinforced concrete gridlock! At least to 2008...
...well, I guess she only plans to hold on to their razor thin majority for 2 years...she try to ram as much down our throats as possible before being tossed in 2008.
>> The dems cant quiet the voice of the poeple, no matter how hard they try.
But wouldn't it be fun to watch them try?
It'll effect how this website operates...
Might make you more hated than me Jim...;-)
Just ask the other Houston folks...
This is actually pretty serious when you sit back and look at the real end game the liberal/socialists want to achieve...
Massive <sarc> off.
You are smart Freeper
I guess the logic was "If we vote the Democrats into power, things will get SO bad they'll be voted out again if they don't make THAT illegal, too."
Actually, that would make a powerful commercial against Pelosi. Show pictures of concentration camp survivors with tattoos on their arms with a voice-over describing how Pelosi wants grass-root groups to register with the government. It has happened before, and it can happen again.
John McCain and Arlen Specter.... they are for people like you.
It sounds like we may be on the same page on this. It's amazing how many people will instantly trash you on this board if you mention that voting the straight party ticket is not a good way to change our party.
I voted straight R in PA but I wasn't happy about it. I sure as hell didn't want Casey to beat Santorum but hopefully, the next Republican candidate for Senator here in PA will be a true conservative.
And that damn Specter, he's a classic example of why you shouldn't vote for the party over the man. He is definitely not a true conservative and losing his seat to a dem challenger would actually be a blessing so that we would have a chance to win back the seat at some point (Or we could have run a better person against him in the primary).
That's the problem though. The people in power make decisions for the party based on what's going to keep them in power. They don't care what's best for the people so it's almost impossible to beat someone like Specter in a primary election.
When we close our eyes and vote straight R we play right into their hands. We give them the opportunity to gain more power without holding them accountable for their actions.
I agree with you on the 100%.
Santorum (and the President) could have taken a stand and supported the better Conservative instead of following the wishes of the party power brokers.
Thanks for posting this, Jim.
Who does Pelosi think she is? Who is going to control our political speech? I tell you this, no one will control mine.
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.