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.
BTTT
Always remember this: Liberals HATE and FEAR free speech more than any other thing. They still can't figure out how repealing the "fairness" doctrine led to Rush.
Watch them. Watch them very carefully. They wish to castrate the first amendment and find a friendly court to repeal the essence of the second amendment.
The problem is some Freepers don't follow the Ed Koch 70% rule. (I paraphrase) If you agree with me 70% of the time, vote for me. If you agree with me 100% of the time..see a Psychiatrist.
Why don't I do what?
Washington Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott’s blog is at www.examiner.com/blogs/tapscotts_copy_desk
Or, I might ask, "I wonder if Bush will squander this oppty to put the anti-Bush 'wiretapper whiners' back a step or two."
Let this pass, then Bush should step to the podium to address the protesters at Crawford and explain that he is vetoing the bill because it would inhibit them from freely protesting there against policies they disagree with.
Come out as a supporter of protesters' rights!
Say that he wants the government to tap the phones of terrorists, not wiretap American dissenters.
CNN/MSM would burn two weeks of air time trying to figure out what Bush's nefarious angle is.
Clearly aimed at the bloggers and talk radio which are driving the nails into the MSM's coffin.
Hitler's speech to the party on 1 May, 1927 is well worth re-reading today. Perhaps the clearest self-definition of the Left in history.
That's like saying:
"Funny how Vegans are quiet about this turn toward Salads, hummus and Tofu."
That name is weird to me. There was an old Soap Opera actor...I mean years ago when I was quite young...named Mark Tapscott. And he was a mature-aged actor THEN. I wonder if this could be his son. Not that it matters. It gave me an odd feeling and raised that question in my mind.
Whenever someone says, "I'm not going to hurt you" or "this is for your own good," you ought to run for the hills because it's gonna hurt like Hell and you'll feel bad for a very, very long time.
There you go again, assuming courts are decent...
No, that would be the hildabeast!
Your papers please!!!!
Well, after the USSC adopted Judicial Review, what else could they expect? Or, what more could a power-grabbing Judicial Oligarchy ask for!?
Instead of Neal Boortz etal running around crying about two party systems and fair taxes, if the talk show folks and a few talking heads put together a solid Constitutional "cleanup" amendment--instead of a bogus "Contract with America"---and get it passed (yes, I know it's hard,) then it could be a major roadblock to Judicial Activism, and would also give the Strict Constructionists on the court a way to revisit Stare Decisis on some "settled laws" like Roe.
I think Newt Gingrich's Contract turned out to be a diversion and a distraction from the REAL contract----The Constitution. Not changing the Constitution by amendment allows Breyer and Stevens to claim that they need to 'grow' the 'living document.'
Oh well...in that case, no chance of any of them being adopted. =(
Posted on 12/15/2006 8:03:14 PM CST by Jim Robinson, 345 replies · 9,554+ views
[Fascist] Pelosi Targets Grassroots Freedom of Speech
Human Events, Dec 18, 2006, Amanda B. Carpenter
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.