Saturday, December 23, 2006

Pelosi spits on the First Amendment

Just like a typical rich leftist from San Francisco. One thing that is common. With few exceptions (Sometimes Feingold, but he can't be counted on), the democrats (as well as John McCain) can always be counted on when it comes to putting the iron heel down against grassroots efforts from we the people.

Remember McCain and the dems yapping about "lobbying reform"? Well guess what, it's not K street that they have in mind. It is telling us grass roots activists to sit down and shut up.

Human Events gives us the devil, which is in the details

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.

The legislation would make changes to the legal definition of “grassroots lobbying” and require any organization that encourages 500 or more members of the general public to contact their elected representatives to file a report with detailed information about their organization to the government on a quarterly basis.

The report would include identifying the organization’s expenditures, the issues focused on and the members of Congress and other federal officials who are the subject of the advocacy efforts. A separate report would be required for each policy issue the group is active on.

“Right now, grassroots groups don’t have to report at all if they are communicating with the public,” said Dick Dingman of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. “This is an effort that would become a major attack on the 1st Amendment.”

Under the bill, communications aimed at an organization’s members, employees, officers or shareholders would be exempt from the reporting requirement. That would effectively exempt most corporations, trade associations and unions from the reporting requirements—but not most conservative grassroots groups, which frequently are less formally organized.

Larger, well-funded organizations are also currently eligible for a “low-dollar lobbyist exemption” that Pelosi’s bill does not give to grassroots organizations. If an organization retains a lobbyist to contact lawmakers directly at a cost of $2,500 per quarter or less, or employs a full-time lobbyist at a cost of $10,000 per quarter or less, the organization does not have to report to the government.


Under this scenario, unless you're a beltway man, you're nothing. This piece of leftist big government trash needs to be smashed into pieces.


Communications guru said...

Human Events. Wow, there’s an unbiased source. Any publication that features that loon hatemonger Anne Coulter has zero creditability.

A leftist is a communist, and the Speaker is a liberal. Here’s a great line, or I should say lie, “the democrats (as well as John McCain) can always be counted on when it comes to putting the iron heel down against grassroots efforts from we the people.” Democrats are we the people.

bluzie said...

Well it will certainly be a major blow to organizations like!

liberals Hate America said...

Guru, Did you bother to absorb the article, Public Citizen A Liberal Watch Dog group is founded by Ralph Nader(That is a truly unbiased point of view), this bill in essence could put a stop to your own Blog. You are truly a Liberal at heart; you want to argue a point when in fact you have no idea what you are talking about. No wonder there is Global Warming all you Lib’s spouting all the hot air.

Public Citizen, a liberal “government watchdog,” is taking credit for helping Pelosi craft the legislation and expects the final draft of the bill to closely resemble Pelosi’s Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006.

Public Citizen admits it is helping craft grassroots disclosure legislation for Speaker-Elect Pelosi fashioned after her 2006 legislation, H.R. 4682, which would require new quarterly disclosure to Congress of grassroots policy speech and publication.
The Pelosi/Public Citizen bill adds new, extensive disclosure requirements that would burden all and even silence some grassroots causes

Liberals historically have defended the privacy of association and even the right to anonymous political speech. Justice John Paul Stevens, for example, wrote the majority opinion in McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) protecting the anonymity of speakers on political issues.

Pelosi's bill would impose burdensome quarterly disclosure requirements on small, controversial, unpopular speakers who have no Washington lobbyists and who provide no money to candidates. Their bill is not targeted at so-called "Beltway" lobbying by corporations and trade associations, and is at odds with what Public Citizen itself admits are constitutional rights

The bill would treat small grassroots communicators more harshly than even K Street lobbyists by making grassroots communicators ineligible for exemptions available to Washington-based lobbyists. The bill would also provide loopholes for large corporations and labor unions to spend hundreds of millions of dollars communicating to shareholders, employees, officers and members.

This is the true purpose of the bill, which is to allow Pro-Liberal unions to have free speech and therefore promote there liberal agenda.

As a matter of fact and principle, regulating the speech, publishing, association and petitioning rights of citizens is not targeted at corruption in Washington, As Pelosi would have its supporters believe. Instead, it is targeted directly at the First Amendment rights of citizens and their voluntary associations. The bill, therefore, would restrict rights of the real “watchdogs,” American citizens.

Guru, you are truly a hypocrite.

Communications guru said...

I’m certainly not a hypocrite but I know you are a liar, hate America. The chances are pretty good if you say it it’s not true. All I said was I don’t trust the source dan is referencing. Give me a link to what your using as a source.

After I read the proposal then I’ll have an opinion, but I am certainly going to accept your or dan’s word on it with your track records for truthfulness. If I don’t like it I will let her know. If it brings some accountability to hate groups like the smear boat vets I say it’s a good thing.

bluzie said...

Yep I agree with communication guru, let's read the proposal.

I see where Human Events is all too ready to whip up a big controversy rather than present the facts.

I for one am tired of pitting party against party. This congress needs to work on this war gone bad and the huge deficit that threatens our economy for years to come.

liberals Hate America said...

You are a supposed intellect. Google it, do some research and come to a conclusion. Why dose someone have to point you in a direction..

But I will help you Guru as it is Christmas and I was taught to help Slow people.

If Pelosi is to promote a Transparent congress as she has promised, why won’t she allow C-Span to operate there own cameras?

Communications guru said...

You have absolutely no shame lecturing someone else about ethics and transparency in government after the Republicans track record, hate America. This is an 80-page bill that amends the U.S. Code and other things. Among the many, many things it does is close the revolving door of lawmaker to lobbyist, calls for more accountability, bans lobbyist paid travel, calls for fair bids on contracts and addresses the war-profiteering that Halburton is engaged in. Out of those 80 pages you pull out one sentence that I didn’t even see in the bill. You calling me slow, and you pretending to help anyone is very funny.

Tend to focus more on my state, so I haven’t had time to read it. Nor has any action been taken on it or has a nonpartisan analysis of the bill been prepared by the House fiscal agency, but I still like what I have seen in it. That bill has been in committee for almost a year, since February. Why are we just hearing from you now, hate America?

In response to your ridiculous grasping at straws in regard to C-Span, this is from the El Paso News,

“Pelosi said in her response Friday, ''I believe the dignity and decorum of the United States House of Representatives are best preserved by maintaining the current system of televised proceedings.''

Lamb said in an interview he was ''very disappointed'' by Pelosi's decision. He said he tried unsuccessfully to change the policy when Republicans gained control of the House in 1995 and thought this would be another good opportunity because Pelosi has stressed that this will be the most open and ethical Congress in history.”

She’s not doing anything different that has been done since 1986. This is what you’re grabbing on to? Come on, this is below even you, hate America. Why didn’t the Republicans allow C-Span to operate their own cameras? This is a non-issue, and you know it.

She has made a pledge to promote transparency in government, and she is keeping that pledge despite your misinformation.

liberals Hate America said...

You are a true Liberal, How did Halburton get into this, a true Lib cannot put a chain of words into a sentence with out including Halburton. Merry Christmas.

I also oppose the way you post Dan’s full name in a blog. Why would you do that? Dan if you read this perhaps you could post Guru's full name so we could contact him.

BigShot said...

While the said bill does SOME HELP, it still violates the first ammendment. Why should grassroot activists who are not putting a dime into there organization have to report??? I think lobbiests like Abramof, and others should have to report. It is sad that America voted for a change that would violate there rights.

Communications guru said...

Yes I am a true liberal. Thank you for the compliment, hate America. You accuse me of not reading the bill, and then you wonder how Halyburton got into it? Are you for real? A huge part of the bill deals with government contracts and no-bid contracts, and, like it or not, Halyburton is the rightly the poster child for war profiteering. It’s amazing that you say you are for small government and less taxes, but you have no problem with this company ripping you and I off. What does that have to do with Christmas?

He already did post my full name. I didn’t know his name was a secret. Even though it will hurt me financially and professionally, I could care less if he posted my name. I’m proud to stand by what I have written.

BigShot said...

I think Halyburton needed to be in the bill, as do all companies paying lobbiests. But the bill needs to be changed so that a non-profit lobbying for good, i.e. enviormental control, dosen't have to give a report.