Congress Trying to Silence Grassroots Movements in America?
cn | 21 January, 2007 23:06Mark Fitzgibbons of GrassrootsFreedoms.com accuses Congress of attempting to track and, as he accuses, silence grassroots movements in the US...
Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently 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 the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, 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.
On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.'
Now, the government can justify this in any way they want, but when it comes down to it, is it right for the government to track any and all major efforts to organize political movemnts? It seems to me to be a conflict of interests and another step towards authoritarianism. I haven't found this reported in any major media outlets yet and holds major First Amendment Rights implications.
There's a piece at hillnews.com about the bill as well citing former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith:
“It’s a disaster, generally, the notion that the government should be checking up on attempts by citizens to communicate with citizens,” Smith said. He argued that lawmakers are seeking the identity of firms paying for constituent calls for purposes of retaliation: “Can you think of any other reason that members of Congress need to know who’s running grassroots ads in their district?”
However, the piece at hillnews.com finishes with this:
As for the [Free Speech C]oalition’s rhetorical combat with Public Citizen, MacCleery characterized the specter of a lawsuit against grassroots rules as an attempt to generate a false opposition to reform.
“It’s almost like they’re flacks,” she added, “like they’re good at creating the appearance of controversy where none exists.”
Both sides have good points, yet when it comes to passing laws with such potentially sweeping effects to one's ability to critique or even oppose the government, we must proceed cautiously and the media must be diligent in its reporting. Otherwise, we as a nation will only move one unimpeded step closer to a police state.
You can also read a very right-leaning report here. However, I would not call the report balanced in any way, shape, or form, but certainly gives a perspective not covered in the other sources, yet in agreement with the final statement - that this is a dangerous bill.
Posted in
Ethics, Legal, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State .
Comment: (0).
Trackbacks:(0).
Permalink
«Next post |
Previous post»