Incoming Congressional majority attacks free speech


Just like the Republicans, the Democrats are highly selective about rights and who gets them. Why am I not surprised.
There are reasons I do not trust the Democrats to "clean up" the mess of government.

They would rather deprive you of rights in the name of reform than actually do their sworn duty. Emphasis added.

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.

Let's look at what the Constitution has to say about the power of Congress to regulate free speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Funny thing, according the the First Amendment, Congress HAS NO POWER to regulate free speech.

Congress HAS NO POWER to register people before they can speak out. It doesn't matter if people say the appropriate things or not. It doesn't matter if those "in charge" like what is said.

It's pretty simple.

"Congress shall make no law..."

This is an old stunt. Yes, the Republicans pulled it before. And yes, the Democrats pulled it before that. Congress "regulates" and then grants selective exemptions to the right people and groups.

Bottom line, Congress does not trust you to "properly" use a right specifically granted to you by the First Amendment.

Here's where things get scary.

Public Citizen is the group advocating restrictions on your rights.

This was the bit that jumped out, the "smoking gun" so to speak. Emphasis added.

What is likely of greater concern to your coalition are the additional disclosures required of for-profit lobbying firms and vendors, a category which includes several of your coalition members. Wealthy special interests hire outside firms to wage lobbying campaigns targeting the general public, most often through expensive TV and radio ads. Under the proposal, these organizations would be required to disclose how much a vendor is paid, and the vendor would report how that money was spent. These professionalized campaigns to influence votes on behalf of special interests are the overwhelming source of expenditures on grassroots lobbying.

Public Citizen is just such a group.

Long story short, the "good guys" get rights and freedom from Congressional oversight. But you don't.

The Free Speech Coalition responded to the Public Citizen letter. I liked this part.

Your bill targets those who do not have Washington lobbyists, and who do not provide money, gifts or junkets to Members of Congress, but who merely communicate with as few as 500 people urging them to contact Congress. Requiring grassroots causes and their agents to register and report quarterly to Congress will result in silencing many small, unpopular and even controversial speakers both by the costs of reporting and penalties for failures to report, and by the mere disclosure of and by those who merely provide services to those causes.

Congress should be listening to the People, not listening in on them.

Again, according the the United States Constitution, Congress does not have the power to regulate free speech. What's more, this fails the parity test big time. Democrats are more than willing to apply these restrictions, provided they and their allies are exempted from the law.

The rule of law should apply equally to everyone or it should apply to no one.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sat - December 30, 2006 at 03:59 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved