Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Fascist] Pelosi Targets Grassroots Freedom of Speech
Human Events ^ | Dec 18, 2006 | Amanda B. Carpenter

Posted on 12/15/2006 6:03:14 PM PST by Jim Robinson

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) has pledged to take up a lobbying reform proposal that would impose new regulations on speech by grassroots organizations, while providing a loophole in the rules for large corporations and labor unions.

The legislation would make changes to the legal definition of “grassroots lobbying” and require any organization that encourages 500 or more members of the general public to contact their elected representatives to file a report with detailed information about their organization to the government on a quarterly basis.

The report would include identifying the organization’s expenditures, the issues focused on and the members of Congress and other federal officials who are the subject of the advocacy efforts. A separate report would be required for each policy issue the group is active on.

“Right now, grassroots groups don’t have to report at all if they are communicating with the public,” said Dick Dingman of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. “This is an effort that would become a major attack on the 1st Amendment.”

Under the bill, communications aimed at an organization’s members, employees, officers or shareholders would be exempt from the reporting requirement. That would effectively exempt most corporations, trade associations and unions from the reporting requirements—but not most conservative grassroots groups, which frequently are less formally organized.

Larger, well-funded organizations are also currently eligible for a “low-dollar lobbyist exemption” that Pelosi’s bill does not give to grassroots organizations. If an organization retains a lobbyist to contact lawmakers directly at a cost of $2,500 per quarter or less, or employs a full-time lobbyist at a cost of $10,000 per quarter or less, the organization does not have to report to the government.

Public Citizen, a liberal “government watchdog,” is taking credit for helping Pelosi craft the legislation and expects the final draft of the bill to closely resemble Pelosi’s Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006, which contains these provisions.

Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, said the changes would help “streamline” how grassroots organizations are regulated by the IRS and other laws. Public Citizen would like Congress to adopt the IRS’s definition of “lobbying,” which includes communication that encourages the general public to contact a member of Congress on pending legislation or public policy.

“The IRS has a definition that requires all organizations, including non-profits, to file as a part of our tax returns,” Holman said. “When it comes to the election code and the lobbying disclosure act, they have no definition of grassroots lobbying. It’s excluded from everything. The IRS has a definition of grassroots lobbying, but their information is not publicly reported. It’s just our tax returns to the IRS.”

Suzanne Coffman, director of communication for Guidestar.org, which makes IRS 990 forms available on the Internet, said any secular, non-profit organization that has more than $25,000 in income per year is required by law to make the last three years worth of tax forms available upon request. “We get them directly from the IRS, and we have more than two million 990s online” said Coffman. “For non-charitable organizations, like private charities or private foundations, we have fewer because the IRS began scanning those only in April 2005. They focused on charitable organizations, which make up the bulk of exempt organizations, because those are the ones that accept tax-deductible contributions. The need for accountability is much higher with them than with other types of organizations which are sort of subsidized by the taxpayer because they federally are tax exempt, but not like a charity is.”

Public Citizen’s public IRS 990 disclosure forms show that it raised more than $3 million in 2005. That year, the group spent $297, 431 on mail and $178,182 on consulting and professional fees.

A coalition of grassroots organizers, including David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America and Terrence Scanlon of the Capitol Research Center, have written an open letter calling on Public Citizen to renounce its efforts, which they called “flawed to the point of hypocrisy.”

“This bill would apply to those who have no Washington-based lobbyists, who provide no money or gifts to members of Congress, and who merely seek to speak, associate and petition the government,” it said. “Regulating the speech, publishing, association and petitioning rights of citizens is not targeted at corruption in Washington, as Public Citizen and its supporters would believe. Instead, it is targeted directly at the 1st-Amendment rights of citizens and their voluntary associations.”

The Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act, which made some of these changes, was actually approved by both the House and the Senate in the 109th Congress, but failed to make it through a conference committee.

To help dramatize the bill this time around, Pelosi is planning to assign sponsorship of various amendments to incoming freshman, which they will promote in their maiden House floor speeches.

Current law prevents former members of Congress and senior staff as well as senior executive staff from lobbying for one year. Pelosi’s proposal would extend that to two years and completely ban members and staff from accepting gifts, meals and privately sponsored travel.

Miss Carpenter is Assistant Editor for HUMAN EVENTS. She is the author of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Rodham Clinton," published by Regnery (a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; abuse; antifreespeech; banglist; benedictarnolds; campaignfinance; censorship; congress; constitution; corruption; democrats; emailcongress; fascism; firstamendment; freespeech; guncontrol; immigrantlist; nazipelosi; pelosi; secondamendment; shallmakenolaw; thoughtcrime
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-351 next last
To: Howlin

Great point.


281 posted on 12/16/2006 5:22:06 PM PST by PghBaldy (Reporter: Are you surprised? Nancy Pelosi: No. My eyes always look like this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

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.


282 posted on 12/16/2006 5:37:21 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
These 2 years are going to feel like 8.......
283 posted on 12/16/2006 5:48:26 PM PST by b4its2late (Liberalism is a hollow log and a mental disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Waywardson; Broadside; Taxman; Gelato; Ladycalif

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.




284 posted on 12/16/2006 6:00:05 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Circumstances are the fire by which the mettle of men is tried.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

I guess Al Gore should have thought of that when he invented it.....


285 posted on 12/16/2006 6:06:55 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: EBH
Nothing to see here people... move it along...to the trains.. keep moving, people...this way to the trains.
286 posted on 12/16/2006 6:09:49 PM PST by Rca2000 (NEVER underestimate the power of the pajama party!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn
If a Great Senator can lose his so called base because he supported a sitting Senator of the same party in the state primary, it doesn`t make that base look to bright
287 posted on 12/16/2006 6:15:21 PM PST by neverhillorat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: neverhillorat
I agree with you, you need to go back to the beginning of the particular thread to read why I replied as I did. For a year prior to the election there was quite a few Freepers here saying they wouldn't vote for Santorium because of that support. I took the side of Santorium, trying to explain why it was important to support him, but also if they felt so passionate they needed to address it in the primaries....

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.

288 posted on 12/16/2006 6:53:50 PM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Jim, no need to be concerned about anything Pelosi and gang want to cook up for the next Democrat controlled House.
The Democrats are acting like there were given absolute control of the Federal Government to implement any wacko legislation they think it is "for the poor and downtrodden".

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...

289 posted on 12/16/2006 7:39:37 PM PST by danmar (Tomorrow's life is too late. Live today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

...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.


290 posted on 12/16/2006 8:17:03 PM PST by Constitutional Patriot (Socialism is anti-American, and Democrats are socialists!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yorlik803

>> 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?


291 posted on 12/16/2006 8:30:35 PM PST by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

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...


292 posted on 12/16/2006 10:01:03 PM PST by stevie_d_64 (Houston Area Texans (I've always been hated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
No worry, the Supreme Court will strike it down.

Massive <sarc> off.

293 posted on 12/16/2006 10:06:31 PM PST by Mr. Buzzcut (metal god ... visit The Ponderosa .... www.vandelay.com ... DEATH BEFORE DHIMMITUDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn

You are smart Freeper


294 posted on 12/16/2006 10:24:56 PM PST by neverhillorat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

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."


295 posted on 12/17/2006 12:38:28 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Immigration is to Illegal Immigration what Birth is to Abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
It always starts with registration. Perhaps these groups should all be forced to wear an "X" or something, so they can be easily identified...

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.

296 posted on 12/17/2006 3:15:54 AM PST by 6SJ7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

John McCain and Arlen Specter.... they are for people like you.


297 posted on 12/17/2006 3:48:54 AM PST by gruffwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn

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.


298 posted on 12/17/2006 4:01:47 AM PST by gruffwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn

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.


299 posted on 12/17/2006 4:03:39 AM PST by gruffwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

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.


300 posted on 12/17/2006 4:08:51 AM PST by Silly (plasticpie.com, home of Silly humor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-351 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson