Last week, I mentioned that a proposed Senate bill is trying to impose onerous burdens on grassroots activist groups that would curtail our right to free political speech.
Apparently, the House version of the bill would impose even heavier burden on churches.
Under the House version of the Bill, a church or organization would be considered a “grassroots lobbying firm” subject to this law if the group attempted to influence the general public to voluntarily contact federal officials in order to express their own views on a federal issue. Furthermore, many large churches and ministries utilize mass media to communicate their message. Under this House Bill by Nancy Pelosi, these communications, as long as they are directed to at least one person who is not a member of the church, would fall under this new Bill. Finally, if the church spends an aggregate of only $50,000 or more for such efforts in a quarterly period, they are now required to register as lobbyists. Many ministries spend $50,000 or more a month for air time.
Churches, especially churches that promote the sanctity of life and of the family, are a real thorn in the side to liberals because they have a nasty habit of informing their constituents of their attempts to undermine those traditional values through legislation. Rather than counter with open political debate and discourse, the liberals want to use the strong-arm of the law and burdensome regulation to shut down political speech. So much for the First Amendment.
In their view, religion should be confined to an hour on Sundays and the privacy of your home and should have no effect on anyone outside of that little box. Like Victorian-era children, religious believers—traditional religious believers—should be seen, but not heard. Meanwhile, Democrats still flock to the pulpits of churches that welcome their liberal policies and social re-engineering under the guise of Christian social teaching. Wonder how evenly these regulations will be enforced.
Technorati Tags:Congress, Democrats, First Amendment, free speech, House, liberalism, Pelosi, religious freedom
“Rather than counter with open political debate and discourse, the liberals want to use the strong-arm of the law and burdensome regulation to shut down political speech. So much for the First Amendment.”
If enacted, I wonder if the law will be applied equally to churches that ask members to contact federal officials about an anti-Iraq war, anti-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, etc. perspective.
Hi, I am sorry but you have misread the bill. It is not true that “a church or organization would be considered a ‘grassroots lobbying firm’ subject to this law if the group attempted to influence the general public to voluntarily contact federal officials in order to express their own views on a federal issue.”
Actually, Senate Bill 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, says that it would cover activities NOT of the organization, but of the organization if undertaken on behalf of a paying client. Thus, Section 220 says:
.
Likewise, it is not true that communications from the organization to the members are covered “as long as they are directed to at least one person who is not a member of the church”, as you say. To the contrary, Section 220 says this about that:
Hope that I have helped to clear up the misunderstanmdings being propogated by those with ulterior interests.
A Big Fat Slob
If conservatives prove as cravenly eager as lefties to use such legislation against liberal-leaning churches, they’ll be tarred as homophobic, racist, or hypocritical.
I wonder with dpt. So often we are criticized (and sometimes rightly) for NOT raising awareness of social justice issues via the pulpit, mailings, church bulletins, etc. So now we are supposed to raise awareness but not inform voters of how they can be part of necessary change?
And does this mean that if pro-life advocates reference God in their reasons for being pro-life they will be representing “church” politically by virtue of their particular religion? Or if a group of Catholics were to hand out voter info on their own initiative would they be politically respresentative of Catholics?
And, for instance, would DB be violating the proposed regulations by suggesting that we ask our senators to vote a certain way? After all, this is KNOWN to be a religion-based website…etc,etc. I think these people are just trying to give us a headache!
Actually “Slob”, you are referring to Senate Bill #1, while my blog entry and Jay Sekulow’s column are referring to the House Bill, which does contain those provisions. I will refrain from accusing you, like you accused me, of having ulterior motives to confuse people.
Incidentally, since any media broadcast will, by definition, include more than 1 or 500 non-church people the limit is moot.
I think this comes under “the law of unintended consequences” (P. J. O’Rourke: “the one law Congress always passes”). I mean, can’t you see some nice liberal parish in San Fran or Berkeley putting together a media campaign against the federal death penalty, buying airtime, etc. – and then having enforcement of this law, once passed, come down on them like a ton of bricks, all thanks to Nancy frickin’ Pelosi? Well played, Nancy, well played.
Sorry, I did misread your reference to the House version of the bill. (And it was painfully clear—must be my old age kicking in.)
But the point, and the analysis of the error, remains the same.
But I wasn’t referring to your analysis when I talked about how some interests are spreading misunderstanidngs about what the bills say—I was referring to the thrid-party quote.
So even though we’re talking about two different bills your analysis remains the same? Hoo-kay. I guess I’m just one of those “right-wing wingnutz” because I don’t agree.
Well, call yourself names if you like. But I think the problem is that the people who are feeding you this stuff do not provide your with references to the actual bill.
The House version of the Bill, while not exactly the same as the Senate, is to the exact same effect—the impact is only on those organizations who are paid by third parties to stimulate grassroots lobbying. It does NOT apply to organizations, like churches, who lobby on their own OR who stimulate grassroots lobbying on their own.
Here’s the operative language from HR 4682:
`(20) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm’ means a person or entity that—
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $50,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.’.
After reading the actual language of the bill, one can see that the claim that “Under the House version of the Bill, a church or organization would be considered a “grassroots lobbying firm” subject to this law if the group attempted to influence the general public to voluntarily contact federal officials in order to express their own views on a federal issue.” Is flat-out false.
Any attempt by congress to limit contact by *any* organization to its members or to others through any media for the purposes of raising awarness and protest over impending legislation is heinous and absolutely should not be allowed to pass.
Many diocese would be in trouble just for paying someone to hire busses and print placards and contacting every parish about sending its congregation together down to DC to protest abortion in the March for Life. Don’t think it wouldn’t happen, either. This is exactly the direction these sorts of laws take.