posted on January 18, 2007 10:01:50 AM new
Looks like you demos are getting what you wanted.
Congress preparing
to criminalize critics?
Senate bill would 'create most expansive
intrusion on First Amendment rights ever'
Posted: January 17, 2007
5:00 p.m. Eastern
The Senate is considering legislation that would regulate grassroots communications, with penalties for critics of Congress.
"In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but isn't, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress," says Richard A. Viguerie, chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com
Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress, as lobbyists are required.
"Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever," Viguerie said.
For the first time in history, he stated, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.
"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers," Viguerie said.
The Senate passed an amendment on the bill Jan. 9 to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone "knowingly and willingly fails to file or report."
Viguerie said the legislation regulates small, legitimate nonprofits, bloggers, and individuals, but creates loopholes for corporations, unions, and large membership organizations that would be able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, yet not report.
"Congress is trying to blame the grassroots, which are American citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights, for Washington's internal corruption problems," he said.
Christian leader James Dobson -- along with Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer and Don Wildmon -- spoke out about the provision on a recent "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast.
"The Democrats, and a few Republicans are trying now, very, very quickly, to insulate themselves from the public and to do it by muzzling people like us," Dobson said. "It's a complex piece of legislation and not everything in it is offensive. But the provision that we cannot accept would require organizations like Focus on the Family to report every contact with anyone in the executive or legislative branches and any effort to try to influence grassroots response, even if it doesn't include a call to action. In other words, they are trying to muzzle us and many other organizations."
Last weekend, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, introduced an amendment to remove the bill's controversial section.
CBN News reported a senior Senate aide said the effort to remove the disputed section is garnering wide support.
"Virtually every single American is represented by a lobbyist," Sen. Bennett said while introducing the bill. "Every single American has someone lobbying in behalf of his or her interests, whether he or she knows it or not."
Bennett argued, according to CBN News, that if the Senate does not remove Section 220, "we will do damage to the constitutional right -- right there in the first amendment, next to freedom of religion and freedom of speech -- the constitutional right to lobby."
"Even though the people who broke the old rules were caught under the old rules, convicted under the old rules, and sent to prison under the old rules, we need to be looking ahead and recognize that in a world where virtually everyone is involved, in one way or another, we need to do this right," he said.
Co-sponsors of Bennett's amendment are Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and John Cornyn, R-Texas.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on January 18, 2007 11:13:59 AM new
They might try, but I seriously doubt they'll be successful at getting this passed...AND not vetoed.
But I'll be waiting, patiently, to see if the 'civil rights' protector LOL LOL LOL [the aclu] comes along to defend all Americans right to FREE SPEECH.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 18, 2007 07:42:20 PM new
The characterization of this bill in your article is grossly unfair and one sided bear. In addition to the clause the jesus freaks are ranting about, which I don't like either by the way, this bill also will do the following:
Bar lawmakers from accepting gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists.
Extend from one to two years the time a former member must wait before he can engage in lobbying activities.
Deny pensions to lawmakers convicted of serious crimes.
Require more reporting by lobbyists on their activities.
Require public disclosure of those home-state projects.
Require senators hitching rides on private jets to pay full charter rates rather than the current practice of paying the far cheaper equivalent of a first class ticket.
Require reporting by lobbyists who obtain small donations from clients and then "bundle" them into larger contributions to politicians.
Prevent spouses of sitting members from lobbying.
I sure don't see anything heinous in any of the above, do you? I betting some of the above stuff is really what James Dobson and Gary Bauer are upset about. But why would they decieve us? Them being such middle of the road straight shooters and all.
The bill passed 96-2 by the way, with the section in question striken. Blame it on the democrats if you'd like. Good for them, and all those Republicans who voted for it too, which must have been virtually ALL of them.
posted on January 18, 2007 08:43:36 PM new
"with the section in question STRICKEN"
lol ah yes, profe, that DID make the difference.
But it sure sounds like you're trying to imply that had that section remained in the bill....they would have had as much agreement.
I don't believe that would have been the case at ALL.
THAT'S exactly WHY it was removed from the bill.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
