• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Anyone heard of this?

Red Robin

Well-known member
January 11, 2006

Senate Tired of Your E-mails, Phone Calls; Expected to Pass Bill that Will Keep You From Getting Needed Information.

Without a doubt, this could be the most important letter I have written you.

The U.S. Senate is poised to pass Senate Bill 1 (Section 220), which would effectively keep AFA and every other pro-family organization in America from providing you information on bills in Congress. Under Senate Bill 1 (Section 220), we would only be able to provide you information on a bill at a high cost and at great danger of being penalized by Congress.

To put it bluntly, members of Congress are tired of getting your e-mails and phone calls, and Senate Bill 1(Section 220) is designed to keep information from you that might inspire you to call or write your senator.

Click Here to read AFA's review of Senate Bill 1 (Section 220).

The new Democratic Senate thinks that if it can keep you from getting information—which is what Senate Bill 1 (Section 220) would do—then it will not be getting e-mails and phone calls from you.

Senators favoring this bill are simply tired of hearing from you. That is the bottom line. They don’t want to hear from you. They don’t want you to be informed. They want to silence you. How? By simply keeping you from receiving information that AFA provides.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
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



© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


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.

(Story continues below)


"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.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Here's a newer release I found.
The senate struck the language but they fear Pelosi will put it in the house language.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=24801
 

Steve

Well-known member
"Congress is trying to blame the grassroots, which are American citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights, for Washington's internal corruption problems,"

When democrats take away constitutional rights.....no one cares?

Thankfully all the Republicans voted against this infringement on our right to petition congress...and freedom of speech....

"All Republicans present voted for the amendment, and seven Democrats joined them, making passage of the amendment possible. Democrats who sided with Republicans were Max Baucus of Montana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Kent Conrad and Bryon Dorgan of North Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Benjamin Nelson of Nebraska and Ken Salazar of Colorado."
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
It's a hypocritical bunch here. They get red faced when someone from the govt wants to wire tap suspects phones but when the govt tries to silence it's citizens, they are very silent.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
January 11, 2006

Senate Tired of Your E-mails, Phone Calls; Expected to Pass Bill that Will Keep You From Getting Needed Information.

Without a doubt, this could be the most important letter I have written you.

The U.S. Senate is poised to pass Senate Bill 1 (Section 220), which would effectively keep AFA and every other pro-family organization in America from providing you information on bills in Congress. Under Senate Bill 1 (Section 220), we would only be able to provide you information on a bill at a high cost and at great danger of being penalized by Congress.

To put it bluntly, members of Congress are tired of getting your e-mails and phone calls, and Senate Bill 1(Section 220) is designed to keep information from you that might inspire you to call or write your senator.

Click Here to read AFA's review of Senate Bill 1 (Section 220).

The new Democratic Senate thinks that if it can keep you from getting information—which is what Senate Bill 1 (Section 220) would do—then it will not be getting e-mails and phone calls from you.

Senators favoring this bill are simply tired of hearing from you. That is the bottom line. They don’t want to hear from you. They don’t want you to be informed. They want to silence you. How? By simply keeping you from receiving information that AFA provides.

That isn't what it says at all. Have you read it? The very first sentence gives the clue---(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.' It very clearly states that there can't be PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE. But it does NOT stop grassroots lobbying. You are free to write your Senator all you want.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Here's a newer release I found.
The senate struck the language but they fear Pelosi will put it in the house language.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=24801

It is my understanding that the House passed their version of the Lobbying Reform bill BEFORE the Senate did. There will now be compromise between the two bodies but the house version does not stop you from writing to your Senator or Congressman.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
That isn't what it says at all. Have you read it? The very first sentence gives the clue---(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.' It very clearly states that there can't be PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE. But it does NOT stop grassroots lobbying. You are free to write your Senator all you want.
It's you who didn't read shnubert.

Section 220 of the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act, known as S. 1, would have required churches and other nonprofits, classified as “grassroots lobbying firms,” to report to the House and Senate any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public policy issues that are before Congress. Amendment 20, which Bennett proposed and the Senate approved, struck Section 220 from S. 1.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
schnurrbart said:
That isn't what it says at all. Have you read it? The very first sentence gives the clue---(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.' It very clearly states that there can't be PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE. But it does NOT stop grassroots lobbying. You are free to write your Senator all you want.
It's you who didn't read shnubert.

Section 220 of the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act, known as S. 1, would have required churches and other nonprofits, classified as “grassroots lobbying firms,” to report to the House and Senate any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public policy issues that are before Congress. Amendment 20, which Bennett proposed and the Senate approved, struck Section 220 from S. 1.

What part of "PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE" don't you understand. The big to do about this was "stiffling" individual rights which the bill doesn't do. As for churches telling their congregations about public policy before Congress, I am of the "separation of state and church" persuation myself but I see nothing in there that says a minister can't get up in the pulpit and inform the people there.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Schnurrbart
As for churches telling their congregations about public policy before Congress,I am of the "separation of state and church" persuation myself but I see nothing in there that says a minister can't get up in the pulpit and inform the people there.

Schnurrbart
It very clearly states that there can't be PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE.

actually if the minister is paid.....then the bill fits.

RR:
Section 220 of the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act, known as S. 1, would have required churches and other nonprofits, classified as “grassroots lobbying firms,” to report to the House and Senate any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public policy issues that are before Congress.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Steve said:
Schnurrbart
As for churches telling their congregations about public policy before Congress,I am of the "separation of state and church" persuation myself but I see nothing in there that says a minister can't get up in the pulpit and inform the people there.

Schnurrbart
It very clearly states that there can't be PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE.

actually if the minister is paid.....then the bill fits.

RR:
Section 220 of the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act, known as S. 1, would have required churches and other nonprofits, classified as “grassroots lobbying firms,” to report to the House and Senate any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public policy issues that are before Congress.

Get serious!!! IF some guy comes in from Standard Oil and pays the minister to put out his message about an upcoming bill on oil company regulation, then you might be right.
 

Texan

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
Get serious!!! IF some guy comes in from Standard Oil and pays the minister to put out his message about an upcoming bill on oil company regulation, then you might be right.
What about when dems like the clintons and gore go into black churches and campaign/preach to the congregation during Sunday services? Do you still believe in separation of church and state in that case? Are you a vocal opponent of black 'preachers' like jesse and al mixing politics and religion?
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Texan said:
schnurrbart said:
Get serious!!! IF some guy comes in from Standard Oil and pays the minister to put out his message about an upcoming bill on oil company regulation, then you might be right.
What about when dems like the clintons and gore go into black churches and campaign/preach to the congregation during Sunday services? Do you still believe in separation of church and state in that case? Are you a vocal opponent of black 'preachers' like jesse and al mixing politics and religion?

I don't think politicians should be standing in a church pulpit campaigning any more than I think ministers should be telling their congregation who to vote for. I don't think politicians should use religion to profit politically. I would never trust a person who says things like that. That is why I don't trust bush.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Schnurrbart Quote:
As for churches telling their congregations about public policy before Congress,I am of the "separation of state and church" persuation myself but I see nothing in there that says a minister can't get up in the pulpit and inform the people there.


Schnurrbart Quote:
It very clearly states that there can't be PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE.


Steve Wrote:
actually if the minister is paid ("money spent").....then the bill fits.

RR:Quote:
Section 220 of the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act, known as S. 1, would have required churches and other nonprofits, classified as “grassroots lobbying firms,” to report to the House and Senate any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public policy issues that are before Congress.



Schnurrbart
Get serious!!! IF some guy comes in from Standard Oil and pays the minister to put out his message about an upcoming bill on oil company regulation, then you might be right.

Lets see "would have required churches report,... any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public policy issues that are before Congress."

yep, I was serious...
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Steve said:
Schnurrbart Quote:
As for churches telling their congregations about public policy before Congress,I am of the "separation of state and church" persuation myself but I see nothing in there that says a minister can't get up in the pulpit and inform the people there.


Schnurrbart Quote:
It very clearly states that there can't be PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE.


Steve Wrote:
actually if the minister is paid ("money spent").....then the bill fits.

RR:Quote:
Section 220 of the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act, known as S. 1, would have required churches and other nonprofits, classified as “grassroots lobbying firms,” to report to the House and Senate any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public policy issues that are before Congress.



Schnurrbart
Get serious!!! IF some guy comes in from Standard Oil and pays the minister to put out his message about an upcoming bill on oil company regulation, then you might be right.

Lets see "would have required churches report,... any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public policy issues that are before Congress."

yep, I was serious...

So, the church is specifically spending money to specifically tell the minister to get up and tell them who and what to vote for? You aren't talking about his salary are you? I guess if they call him in on a Monday night to specifically address them about a political matter, and if they then pay him separately, you might be correct. But I really don't see why you have your panties in a wad anyway. The rightwing isn't all that worried about personal liberty and freedoms as proven by the past performance of this administration. In reference to another thread on here about favorite quotes, I think my favorite is one from Benjamin Franklin, something on the order of: " He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."
 

Steve

Well-known member
Schnurrbart
So, the church is specifically spending money to specifically tell the minister to get up and tell them who and what to vote for? You aren't talking about his salary are you?

The law was very general,... not specific, so yes it would cover it even by your definition.

The law as originally quoted was general, it states if money is spent...so yes a pastor's salary could be construed as money spent....and if the minister or pastor speaks of issues, then yes the law would be in effect, and congregations would be breaking the law..

Quote:
Section 220 of the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act, known as S. 1, would have required churches and other nonprofits, classified as “grassroots lobbying firms,” to report to the House and Senate any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public policy issues that are before Congress.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Schnurrbart
" He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."

Except in this argument you and the Liberal democrats are advocating giving up Freedoms....just for the sake of silencing their opponents....not even for a security issue....
 

Latest posts

Top