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

Skip to comments.

Grass-roots groups qualify as lobbyists under ethics bill
Washington Times ^ | 18 January 2007 | S.A. Miller

Posted on 01/17/2007 11:54:49 PM PST by Aussie Dasher

The ethics bill before the Senate not only cracks down on lawmakers, but also subjects politically active ministers and neighborhood groups to the same rules as K Street lobbyists.

Under the legislation, grass-roots organizations that attempt to "influence the general public" to contact members of Congress would have to register as lobbyists and file financial reports -- or face a $200,000 fine. The requirements could apply to a preacher who goes on TV or radio and tells listeners to call their congressman in support of a particular issue, such as a constitutional amendment against homosexual "marriage."

But late last night, in the session's first display of the muscle that even a minority party has in the upper chamber, the entire ethics bill was jeopardized when Republicans blocked a procedural vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, had refused to allow a vote on an amendment to give the president authority to strip spending "earmarks" from bills.

Republicans retaliated by voting in near-lockstep against a parliamentary motion needed to vote on the entire bill. The motion won a 51-46 majority, far short of the two-thirds majority needed. No action is now scheduled on the bill, though negotiations between the two parties continued into the night.

The vote capped a day of squabbling over the ethics bill, in which the Senate's Democratic leaders clashed repeatedly with Republicans on numerous details, starting with the measure to broaden the scope of lobbyist rules. Democratic backers of the measure say it will expose phony grass-roots organizations, sometimes called "astroturf," that front for monied special interests.

(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: ethics; firstamendment; freespeech; grassroots; lobbyists; undemocratic
The 'Rats will try anything!!!
1 posted on 01/17/2007 11:54:52 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
Republicans retaliated by voting in near-lockstep

Hmmmmm....

2 posted on 01/18/2007 12:03:49 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Circumstances are the fire by which the mettle of men is tried.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher


Your free speech/press. How much do you value it?


3 posted on 01/18/2007 12:05:39 AM PST by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Why am I not surprised? Is it because I see our government trampling on our freedoms and not listening to their constituents?


4 posted on 01/18/2007 12:19:03 AM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Only if they also pass a bill that says that politicians will be beheaded for ethics violations.


Intent to throttle free speech and entrench big time political systems even further.

Any elected Representatives who vote for this should be recalled immediately.
5 posted on 01/18/2007 12:37:38 AM PST by wodinoneeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Fabianism, both sides.

You know what's next, Talk Radio.


6 posted on 01/18/2007 12:38:27 AM PST by FLOutdoorsman (The Man who says it can't be done should not interrupt the man doing it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]



After such a dim measure the grass roots likely will start expressing themselves with bullets......


7 posted on 01/18/2007 12:39:17 AM PST by wodinoneeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wodinoneeye
"After such a dim measure the grass roots likely will start expressing themselves with bullets......"

Normally I would call such a statement an exaggeration but free speech is the glue that keeps our free nation civil.

If they think they can pass this and the majority won't notice an immediate change they may be correct but the long term implications will be disastrous.

8 posted on 01/18/2007 1:30:02 AM PST by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
The more I read about this the more I realize the Liberal plan is to create a one party system to insure that they will never be out of power again.

By forcing every person who voices a political opinion to register with the "governments political police", by shutting down talk radio, by implying that anyone voicing an opinion other than a liberal one is using hate speech....they are quietly creating a system where freedom of speech is only allowed if it is a liberal voice speaking.
9 posted on 01/18/2007 5:05:16 AM PST by when the time is right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, had refused to allow a vote on an amendment to give the president authority to strip spending "earmarks" from bills.

Nice try, but they'll need a constitutional amendment for a line-item veto. I believe they had a supermajority when they passed the line-item veto under Clinton, but they passed it as a simple law, because they did not want to endanger their pet projects. Shameful...
10 posted on 01/18/2007 5:10:54 AM PST by LtdGovt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: when the time is right

When it comes to free speech the Liberals have always engaged in hate speech.


11 posted on 01/18/2007 5:11:00 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt

"Nice try, but they'll need a constitutional amendment for a line-item veto. I believe they had a supermajority when they passed the line-item veto under Clinton, but they passed it as a simple law, because they did not want to endanger their pet projects. Shameful..."

That is not what they are proposing. They are proposing a law that allows the President to send individual earmarks back to Congress for a vote...basically, they strip the pork form the bill and force Congress to vote on the port specifically....

That is not a veto.


12 posted on 01/18/2007 8:19:25 AM PST by Jim Verdolini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
After Win in Senate, ACLJ to Pressure House in Challenging Legislation Aimed at Restricting Free Speech of Churches & Non-Profits
13 posted on 02/01/2007 5:46:18 PM PST by pray4liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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