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.”
Blink
One of the founding fathers? Try, "the majority of the Constitutional Convention." Had it been otherwise, the Bill of Rights would have been in the body of the text rather than in amendments to it.I shudder to think of what this nation would be like without them.
What is "obvious" changes over time.
A SCOTUS justice will talk a good fight about recognizing that the framers considered that the Bill of Rights was redundant - that the body of the text is to be interpreted as implying everything that the Bill of Rights states explicitly - and more.The objection to a Bill of Rights was that it would be interpreted as limiting the rights of the people to only those things explicitly mentioned. Hence, the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.It can therefore be argued that whenever an appeal is made to the Bill of Rights it is a shortcut, and that the proper jurisprudence of the Constitution should not even require reference to the Bill of Rights, which should properly be labelled a Bill of Some of the Rights of the People and the States.The question (the historical counterfactual) is, whether the rights of the people and of the states would have been as much respected without the "Bill of Rights" there as essentially a list of things which are not in the Constitution? The example of Jefferson buying Louisiana without specific constitutional warrant does not make us sanguine about that . . .
That's why they can't put McCain on Mount Rushmore -- there's no room for two more faces.
Guess you are a democrat
No, in Washington we have Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Obama and you spend your time criticizing Bush.
Not me. I love George Bush, President of the United States. It is so nice to know I can depend on the man I put into office to protect this country. It is so nice to have a strong man as leader who is not swayed by the hate from the MSM and the liberals.
It is so nice to trust my leaders and not have to wonder what they sneaked in that will harm my grandchildren in this country.
So you tear down the only conservative president we will have for years to come.
Great work.
Would have been nice if you used your destructive tendencies in our fight AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS WHO WILL RUIN THIS COUNTRY you idiot.
"So you tear down the only conservative president we will have for years to come"
Do you know WHY that may be the case? His desired importation of millions of Democrats will guarantee it if the demoralization of the conservatives in the party by his and the Republican Congress spending and pandering doesn't.
"Would have been nice if you used your destructive tendencies in our fight AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS WHO WILL RUIN THIS COUNTRY you idiot."
Both parties are ruining the country, in case you haven't noticed. The Democrats are just a bit quicker at it. My "destructive tendencies" amount to being an INFORMED VOTER who doesn't trust a politician to do his duty just because he has an "R" behind his name.
At least you are a thinking democrat.
I could talk to you for hours about why you should fear the democrats. It is a pity that since you come on FR, FR has failed to show you why none should ever trust a democrat with their country.
FR has failed in showing you the danger of the democrats because the silly purists or those needing attention come on here and trash Bush (siding with the MSM and democrats) because as superman Bush failed to be their personal one time president of the U.S.
I will counter their efforts from now on because that "teach the GOP a lesson" tactic lost this election. But, it was lost by the representatives and senators that did absolutely nothing to utilize our 8 years in office.
You also never found much complaint about them - only Bush.
So, you still think the democrats will protect this country for your grandchildren. What an absolute failure for FR and the tons of anti-Bush posters here.
Give me a reason it matters one whit what they said.
I care more about how the democrats will ruin this country's defenses and the fact that our grandchildren will not be protected from terrorists in this country than I do some silly media question.
Grow up.
You are the reason the conservatives will not have another man in the White House for probably twenty years.
Look - read your posts - no one is ever conservative enough for you, so you destroy them and put a democrat in office hoping to shock people into suddenly turning and bowing to your personal views as the solution for government.
Of course, in the meantime, the country has been destroyed because you gave the country to the democrats. And, therefore, I consider you a democrat.
You act like one no matter your words claiming how purely conservative you are. So, please go to DU and post your hate Bush rhetoric there. You are doing harm on FR and I don't appreciate it in the least.
"You are doing harm on FR and I don't appreciate it in the least."
Oh, BTW.
Why should I care, particularly, what a liberal thinks?
Because NO person makes it through life without making mistakes. EVERY leader makes mistakes. Any GOOD leader can recognize those mistakes and admit to them.
If you actually care about these things you claim you do, you would care enough to ensure that those you support are smart enough to recognize mistakes and correct them or adjust tactics. Those who don't recognize them are bound to repeat them.
Right now, we need to fight the democrats - if you can't see that and continue finding fault with our elected leaders, you are working for the democrats.
Just what do you think the democrats are doing daily - criticizing, finding fault, trashing our President.
What do you do daily - criticize, find fault, trash our president.
Now you tell me the difference.
You have helped the propaganda of the media and the democrats because you too hate Bush.
Gee - how wonderful for our side.
What do you think about Hillary?
What do you think about Obama?
What do you think about Nagel?
What do you think about the tax increases coming because we now have a democrat majority. Why do you think we have a democrat majority?
How come the democrats apparently don't find as much fault with their leaders? Could it be they work together to push the liberal agenda?
How do we push the conservative agenda when we destroy the ones we manage to get elected? Explain to me how that is progress for our side when we continually paint a picture of a president as worthless, as a democrat, as a failure?
I am sick to death of you whiners. You do nothing but whine, whine, whine. You NEVER do anything to move us from the advance of the liberals.
Where is your perfect conservative? How are you promoting him for election? Do you intend to support him once elected? Or, are you daily going to be saying "if _______ does not jump this direction, he will lose my support?"
Exactly how do you plan to make this country go in the conservative direction while giving it to the liberals?
Oh, by the way - those are the democrat talking points. They want the president to admit mistakes so that they can impeach him. You would probably think he needs to be impeached.
You are a democrat by action.
He needs to learn to stick to his guns. People will donate in a manner they know they can.
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.