Posted on 12/30/2006 7:45:04 AM PST by Valin
WASHINGTON - Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has cooked up with Public Citizen’s Joan Claybrook a “lobbying reform” that actually protects rich special interests and activists millionaires while clamping new shackles on citizens’ First Amendment rights to petition Congress and speak their minds.
Pelosi tried earlier this year to move H.R. 4682, the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006,” which is now cited by Public Citizen’s Web site as the vehicle it is helping the incoming speaker to craft for the new Congress. The proposal Claybrook is helping craft for introduction early in 2007 is expected to be essentially the same bill Pelosi put forth this year.
That is bad news for the First Amendment and for preserving the kind of healthy, open debate that is essential to holding politicians, bureaucrats and special interests to account for their conduct of the public business.
The key provision of the 2006 bill was its redefinition of grassroots lobbying to include small citizens groups whose messages about Congress and public policy issues are directed toward the general public, according to attorneys for the Free Speech Coalition.
All informational and educational materials produced by such groups would have to be registered and reported on a quarterly basis. Failure to report would result in severe civil penalties (likely followed soon by criminal penalties as well).
In addition, the 2006 bill created a new statutory category of First Amendment activity to be regulated by Congress. Known as “grassroots lobbying firms,” these groups would be required to register with Congress and be subject to penalties whenever they are paid $50,000 or more to communicate with the general public during any three-month period.
In other words, for the first time in American history, potentially millions of concerned citizens involved in grassroots lobbying and representing viewpoints from across the entire political spectrum would have to register with Congress in order to exercise their First Amendment rights.
There is even more bad news here, though, because the Pelosi-Claybrook proposal includes loopholes big enough to protect Big Labor, Big Corporations and Big Nonprofits, as well as guys with Big Wallets like George Soros. Big Government, you see, always takes care of its big friends.
The Pelosi-Claybrook proposal builds on the restrictions on free speech created by campaign finance reform measures like McCain-Feingold that bar criticism of congressional incumbents for 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days before a general election.
What we are witnessing here is the continuing repeal of the First Amendment. If Pelosi-Claybrook becomes law in 2007, you can be sure it will be followed by more regulations and restrictions on free speech in 2008 and beyond.
The next steps after forcing grassroots citizen lobbyists to register with Congress will be the steady encroachment of congressional inquisitors into determining whose messages are fit for the public and whose are not. Any guesses on what the officially approved messages will say about things like waste and corruption in government?
Nothing. The inquisitors won’t allow it.
That’s what Big Government does — it keeps getting bigger and bigger and, as Publius noted in The Federalist Papers, no “parchment barrier” like the First Amendment is going to prevent those in power from telling the rest of us how to live.
That’s the lesson forgotten by the Republicans who were given the opportunity of a dozen years to start putting Big Government back in its place and thereby protect individual freedom.
So now we have Nancy Pelosi and Joan Claybrook deciding what kind of grassroots lobbying the rest of us can do.
Funny how the left is quiet about this turn toward Fascism, Naziism and Communism.
Claybrook made a fool of herself trying to defend the indefensible during hearings on NTSA's failure to detect tire/rollover problems. She took refuge in the consumerist home of true scoundrels with Raplh Nader.
Yes.
Next question.
Time for anyone wanting to set up blog sites, or sites for political free speech to move them out of US jurisdiction.
Google for "anonymous offshore hosting" returns a lot of hits,
like:
http://www.katzglobal.com/hosting/offshore-hosting.html
also see Hosting & Domains section of:
http://gold-pages.net/
That's what they said about McPain/Finkgold. Bush signed it into tyrannical law and the Supremes rubber stamped it.
Anyone not surprised that Nancy and her lib goons would do this, is a fool
But hey .. it's all part of the lesson to be learned
Petty tyrants -- I see becoming a 'head on a stick' in their futures.....
Reminds me of Mussolini's final fate.....
>>
That’s what Big Government does — it keeps getting bigger and bigger and, as Publius noted in The Federalist Papers, no “parchment barrier” like the First Amendment is going to prevent those in power from telling the rest of us how to live.
<<
And this is where I take the opportunity to point out that when the RINOs in power for the last 6 years had the chance, they would not even defund NPR, let alone reign in the Compliance State.
They're among friends.
I cannot even imagine being in the House of Representatives having Mommy pointing her finger at all of those men. If they let her have total say-so and control then they are a bunch of wusses.
Scold me now.
Forget the FedGov attempts to take over our thought processes. It is neither Lib nor Left nor any other political party. It is everywhere, even in the most Conservative talkshow. While we're talking pc, I will state that as Pres, Ford was a zero. Not in the top 90%. This should serve as a warning for those who wish to make a member of Congress into President. You'll get a lapdog sometimes.
Bush signed it into tyrannical law and the Supremes rubber stamped it.
(one mans opinion, freely given, and worth almost that much)
I think they (USSC) got tired of congress and the presidents expecting them to clean up their messes. By that I mean voting for and signing laws that are obviously unconstitutional, and then expecting the USSC to say no. Then Congress/Presidents could go back to the "People" and say "Hey we tried, but the USSC says no".
From what I ubderstand it's ( McCain-Feingold) going back before them soon.
We almost forgot where you come from for a moment...
Ok, moment's over, carry on.....
Bush will veto it.
Who is Mark Tapscott...the writer of this piece. Do you know?
Why don't you do that? The media hype of the Presidency of this man is intended to undercut the accomplishmenbts of Pres Reagan.
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.