humanevents.com — House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) has pledged to take up a lobbying reform proposal that would impose new regulations on speech by grassroots organizations, while providing a loophole in the rules for large corporations and labor unions..........
Dec 17, 2006 View in Crawl 4
cypherzDec 18, 2006
Interesting to me is how any comment that says "both parties are the same" is dugg down quickly. The truth is that the same agendas will continue under both parties. The money that buys our laws is buying laws from BOTH parties. When will people wake up and see the truth? Bill Hicks said "Do you want to vote for the puppet on my right hand or the puppet on my left hand?".We'll still see a slow decline in personal freedom under both parties.
Closed AccountDec 18, 2006
What's funny about this is that a conservative publications makes it sound as though a liberal doign what they have always done is bad...
franksmithDec 18, 2006
Freedom of speech will now only be for those that vote for you or can afford to buy it.Gee... what a shocker that Pelosi would come up with this!NOT
llbblDec 18, 2006
She isn't targeting Free speech, she is trying to REDUCE Lobbying which is a good thing!
undergroundmanDec 18, 2006
Conservative spin...go watch some Fox News. Bury bury bury.Although I would like to hear some more unbiased analysis of this, it seems like a good thing to me. Large grassroots organizations need to be regulated like any other lobbying group.
deadirisDec 19, 2006
Thanks for the link. I found this part of the Bill was particularly noteworthy. Pelosi does define the difference between a PAID Grassroots organization and a VOLUNTARY Grassroots organization and the bill appears to be designed to go after only PAID grassroots organizations."SEC. 204. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING. (a) Disclosure of PAID Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying- Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end the following: `Lobbying activities include PAID efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, BUT DO NOT INCLUDE grassroots lobbying.'; and (2) by adding at the end the following: `(18) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the VOLUNTARY efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same. "BTW I am no fan of Pelosi and consider myself a moderate republican and after becoming alarmed by the article did a small amount of detective work.This appears to be a poorly written article and I'd agree with some of the previous posters that it appears to be a "hit piece". That being said, always do your own research on bills that affect your freedoms regardless of what party is proposing them.
b05qDec 19, 2006
repubs vs. dems == oceania vs. eurasia. read 1984.the machines don't count your votes (prove me wrong). i vote with guns and money, just like the government.
mykindaspamDec 30, 2006
Instead of waiting for other "non-biased" coverage on this bill and cover it, why don't *you* look into it and come to your own conclusions?
mykindaspamDec 30, 2006
No politician gets to be Speaker of the House today without "sliminess." Labor contributions can be just as problematic as corporate ones.
mykindaspamDec 30, 2006
How does this bill target "so-called" grassroots while leaving "true" grassroots groups alone? This bill does not make that distinction and to think otherwise is being gullible.
mykindaspamDec 30, 2006
The danger of this bill is that it doesn't distinguish between the *evil* grassroots organizations and the *good* grassroots organizations. It doesn't even distinguish between "Astro-turf" groups and genuine grassroots groups. The bill doesn't just target some huge murky group backed by Big Oil or Big Tobacco, it will include a hypothetical group that is financed only by small, individual donations from the general public, has no direct ties to Washington lobbyists and does not provide meals, trips or contributions to politicians. It has three employees, one of whom handles public outreach, operates the website, sends out email and crafts and places ads in newspapers that provides information to the public. Under HR 4682, THEY are required to register because there is a paid employee in charge of "stimulating" public opinion. It would also even require some direct mail marketing agencies hired by this kind of grassroots group to mass mail postcards to the general public to register as lobbyists--all the while providing loopholes and exemptions for others to exploit. It eliminates many of the larger advocacy groups, big corporations, unions and trade associations from coverage by exempting those communications targeted at a group's members, employees, officers or shareholders, but NOT less formally organized groups. The small *true* grassroots groups are still required to report and register. What is so wrong with registering and reporting to the very body they are trying to change? Nothing if your government always has the public's best interests at heart, always follows the rules and never acts in a retaliatory manner. This bill limits speech while pretending to just target the "bad guys." What harm does registering do? Let's just say this bill does absolutely none. What comes next? When was the last time any part of the government stopped with one or two rules or laws requiring something? From guns to abortion to taxes to data gathering, the government has a history of asking for an inch and taking a mile. They rarely stop with what they start with. This bill is a good example. McCain-Feingold was supposed to fix the problem, but now they are back for another bite. When these loopholes inevitably allow some groups to get around the law while others cannot, they will come back for another bite at control. How long until they decide it is reasonable to list all of the people donating or on the mailing lists? Anyone who thinks that won't happen hasn't paid attention to other governments' and our government's actions over the past century. Laws with created with even the purest of intentions end up far from where they started. Now add in money, power and the potential for political retribution. I think the standard question an American should ask when mulling over a proposed law is-- how will I feel about it when the party or people I don't support are in power?