ChristiansUnite Forums

New Congress Proposes Dangerous Legislation to Impact Churches

Nancy Pelosi hasn’t been Speaker of the House for two weeks yet and there is already proposed legislation which would be the most significant encroachment ever into the affairs and ability of churches and other organizations to communicate.  Under the guise of lobbying reform, Speaker Pelosi and others have proposed legislation greatly expanding the scope of lobbying regulation which would have a significant impact on churches, pastors, religious denominations, public interest organizations, civic organizations and other nonprofit groups.  Even private individuals who voluntarily pay for media to distribute important messages to the general public on political matters would be impacted.

So draconian is the proposed Lobbying Reform Bill that it would actually impose registration and reporting requirements on churches and other nonprofit organizations.  This is because the definition of “lobbyist” and “lobbying firms” includes specifically grassroots-organizing efforts.  Under this broad-based regulatory scheme that Nancy Pelosi is advocating, many churches, especially larger churches with TV and radio ministries, would be subject to registration as a lobbying organization.  Failure to comply with these lobbying requirements could result in fines and even criminal sanctions.  Churches and their pastors who address the social issues of the day and encourage members and non-members alike to mobilize for action, including communications with Congress, would be required to make certain initial and quarterly disclosures to the United States Congress about their activities.

Under the House version of the Bill, a church or organization would be considered a “grassroots lobbying firm” subject to this law if the group attempted to influence the general public to voluntarily contact federal officials in order to express their own views on a federal issue.  Furthermore, many large churches and ministries utilize mass media to communicate their message.  Under this House Bill by Nancy Pelosi, these communications, as long as they are directed to at least one person who is not a member of the church, would fall under this new Bill.  Finally, if the church spends an aggregate of only $50,000 or more for such efforts in a quarterly period, they are now required to register as lobbyists.  Many ministries spend $50,000 or more a month for air time.

This attempt to slip in this onerous requirement on churches and other organizations must be stopped.  The rationale behind Speaker Pelosi and others’ desire to silence churches is obvious.  Pastors addressing the moral issues of the day have been able to mobilize tens of thousands of individuals to speak out on various issues.  But under this proposed legislation, if a church or denomination spent $50,000 of its own resources on air time to encourage people to support the confirmation of federal judicial nominees or to lend its support to a federal marriage amendment, then that church or denomination would be classified as a grassroots lobbying firm.  This is one of the most significant violations of free exercise of religion and the freedom of political speech in our Nation’s history.  Some have said that this plan is the most comprehensive regulation of political speech that has ever been put forward by Congress.

As one of the lawyers who argued against the campaign finance law at the Supreme Court of the United States, I can tell you that this increased government regulation of churches is not only unwarranted but also unwise.  In my argument before the Court, I asserted that a prohibition on minors contributing to a political campaign was unconstitutional, and that students have fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association.  A unanimous Supreme Court agreed with me.  The same is true here.  Lobbying reform can be put forward without impacting the ability of pastors and churches to speak out on the moral issues of the day, which is part of their prophetic responsibilities.  The First Amendment of the Constitution provides for the right of the citizens to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”  Previous lobbying legislation recognized this right to petition the government and specifically carved out exceptions in the law.  Unfortunately and not surprisingly, Speaker Pelosi’s proposals have no such protection for the ability of our citizens to petition the government. In essence, this proposed legislation attempts to override the United States Constitution.

This is not the way our Republic is structured.  Congress has no authority to amend our United States Constitution on its own accord.  If the Freedom of Speech and the Free Exercise of Religion Clauses mean anything, they mean that church leaders and other citizens have the right to address the moral issues of the day and encourage participation of the citizenry in support of or opposition to legislative initiatives.  Nancy Pelosi’s proposed legislation would have stopped Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. from gathering support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In fact, as he addressed the social issues from the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA, he might well have had to register as a lobbyist. 

There are so many people in this nation that are pushing for a socialistic government. Their idea though is a socialism that is run by the people. The thing they don't seem to understand is that what the democrats are doing here in this bill is the type of socialism that they will get.

More on this bill in a memo posted on the ACLJ website:


TO: Jay Sekulow, Colby May, and Drew Ryun
FROM: Erik Zimmerman, Matthew R. Clark, Drew Ashby, Jonathan Shumate, Janelle Smith, and Ben Sisney
RE: Executive Summary of How the Grassroots Lobbying Bills (H.R. 4682 and S.1) Would Affect Churches and Other Non-Profit Organizations
DATE: January 11, 2007
By greatly expanding the scope of lobbying regulation, the grassroots lobbying bills (H.R. 46821 and S.1) would affect many churches, pastors, denominations, public interest organizations, law firms, radio and TV personalities, civic organizations, nonprofit and for-profit organizations, the media, and private individuals that voluntarily choose to pay for any medium to distribute their message to the general public.
Amendment 20 to S.1—proposed by Senator Bennett on January 10, 2007, and co-sponsored by Senator McConnell—would eliminate the provisions of the Senate bill dealing with “grassroots lobbying firms” and ensure that churches and many other public interest organizations and individuals would not be subject to lobbying regulations.
Existing law—namely, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 19952—imposes registration and reporting requirements upon “lobbyists” and “lobbying firms,” i.e., those who are paid to contact public officials on behalf of a client.3 The grassroots lobbying bills would greatly expand the coverage of the Act to include a new class of lobbyist, “grassroots lobbying firms,” which are individuals and organizations that spend a certain amount of money trying to stimulate “grassroots lobbying” (i.e., encouraging people to contact public officials).4
Many churches (especially larger ones), denominations, public interest organizations and other groups and individuals that encourage members of the public to get involved with federal legal issues would be classified as “grassroots lobbying firms” under these bills.5 These groups and individuals would be required to register with Congress and make certain initial and quarterly disclosures about their activities that would be made available to the public on an easily searchable government website.6 The bills also include financial and criminal penalties for failure to comply with the registration and reporting requirements.7
The House and Senate bills are similar in many respects, although there are several key differences. Under the House bill, a church or other organization would be considered a “grassroots lobbying firm”—subject to registration and reporting requirements—if:
• the group attempted to “influence the general public” (or segments thereof) to “voluntarily” contact federal officials in order to express their own views on a federal legal issue, or to encourage other people to contact federal officials;
• the communication was directed at least one person that was not a member, shareholder, or employee of the group; and
• the group receives income of, spends, or agrees to spend an aggregate of $50,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.8
For example, if a church or denomination spent $50,000 of its resources within one quarter (three month period) to encourage people to support the Federal Marriage Amendment or support the confirmation of a federal judicial nominee, that church or denomination would be classified as a “grassroots lobbying firm” under H.R. 4682.

Under the Senate bill, a church or other organization would become a “grassroots lobbying firm” if:
• the group attempted to “influence the general public” (or segments thereof) to contact federal officials to urge them to take specific action on a federal legal issue;
• the communication was “directed at” at least 500 members of the general public;
• at least one person that the communication was directed at was not a member, employee, shareholder, officer, director, or donor of a non-nominal amount of money or time to the group;
• the communication had the effect of supporting some group or individual’s “lobbying contact” on that issue (a direct communication to a federal official about a legal issue, made on behalf of a client, that is not exempted from the definition of “lobbying contact”); and
• the group received, spent, or agreed to spend $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.9
For example, if a church received or spent an aggregate of $25,000 on salaries, materials, advertisements, etc. within a 3 month period to encourage people to support the Federal Marriage Amendment or support the confirmation of a federal judicial nominee, and the church’s message reached over 500 people including some that are not members or donors of the church, the church would be considered a “grassroots lobbying firm” under S.1.
Under either bill, many churches and other “grassroots lobbying firms” would have to register with Congress and comply with onerous quarterly reporting requirements or face possible fines and criminal penalties. There are numerous differences between the bills, however:
• the House bill’s definition of “paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying” is broader than the Senate bill’s because it is not limited to actions in support of “lobbying contacts,” so more churches and other organizations would likely become “grassroots lobbying firms” under the House bill than under the Senate bill;10
• the House bill has a $50,000 threshold within a quarter to become a “grassroots lobbying firm,” while the Senate bill’s quarterly threshold is just $25,000;11

• the Senate bill provides that “paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying” does not cover an attempt to influence people to contact federal officials “directed at less than 500 members of the general public,” but the House bill does not have a similar provision;12
• the Senate bill’s exception for communications made to members, employees, officers or shareholders of an organization is broader than the House bill’s exception, although neither one would apply to most statements made by pastors during church services;13
• the House bill redefines “client” such that organizations that are not governed by 501(c) must make some disclosures regarding some of their organizational members, while the Senate bill does not alter the definition of “client”;14
• the Senate bill gives grassroots lobbying firms 45 days to register from the time lobbying activities begin, while the House bill only gives them 20 days to register;15
• the House bill contains an additional reporting requirement for each expenditure by grassroots lobbying firms of $250,000, but the Senate bill does not;16 and
• the House bill’s investigation and enforcement provisions are tougher than the Senate bill’s provisions.17
While the existing lobbying statutes provide that they shall not be construed to interfere with “the right to petition the Government for the redress of grievances . . . [or] the right of association, protected by the first amendment to the Constitution,”18 H.R. 4682 and S.1 would do just that. By expanding the Lobbying Act to include many forms of political expression that are far removed from the traditional understanding of “lobbying,” H.R. 4682 and S.1 would violate the First Amendment.19 The bills are certainly not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. Amendment 20 to S.1 should be adopted to exclude “grassroots lobbying firms.”

Full Analysis of How the Grassroots Lobbying Bills (H.R. 4682 and S.1) Would Affect Churches and Other Non-Profit Organizations

http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/HR4682HouseandSenateBillComparison.pdf

It really doesn't matter which version or how they word it, it isn't any of the government's business. They are trying to remove freedom of speech and shut the mouths of citizens. All should remember that they are also trying to regulate what preachers say from the pulpit, and that isn't any of their business either.

The government needs to butt out and handle what the public elected them to do. I must add that their performance is SO POOR that they shouldn't have time to mess with freedom of speech. They have important matters to deal with, the first being their public approval rate near 20%. They have become an organization of wimpy clowns who can't manage their own work, much less the work of individuals, churches, and organizations trying to address all of the messes they make. THEY NEED TO TAKE THE HINT AND LEAVE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ALONE! It is our government, and I'm thinking of a Cosby joke about children, "We can take them out and make another one just like them". However, it shouldn't be that difficult to make it better. THE FIRST STEP WOULD BE TO GO BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION, forget about what Europe is doing, de-throne the judges trying to make law and make the Constitution over, and forget completely about what special interest groups want. Going back to the CONSTITUTION would almost immediately solve a lengthy list of problems. It is more than apparent that our founding fathers had ten times the intellectual capacity of our current leaders. This would be a very conservative estimate.

That is exactly what needs to be done. These people are working to take all freedoms and control from the people and unless the majority of the people are completely blind I do not see our current congress lasting very long.

I would personally like to see 3rd and 4th parties as strong alternatives. Maybe those worth keeping in office could cut their ties and run in those 3rd and 4th parties. Right now, I would guess that the public approval rating of 20% reflects fairly accurately how many of them are worth keeping. 80% of them probably are there for all of the wrong reasons and are part of the problems - not the solutions. After all - why would they want to solve problems when THEY ARE THE PROBLEM!

I would love to see that myself.

Brother,

I was just thinking about the Constitutional Party and maybe the Independent Party. I've read an older platform for the Constitutional Party, and I think they would make a fairly good alternative if they were to change a few things. I do think that it's far past time to end the monopoly by the Democrats and Republicans. Their party affiliations have become more important than the wishes of the people they serve.

I did like the Reagan Revolution and the Republican Contract with America, but they have departed from their own platform and what gave them success. They also abandoned the people who voted for them and the reasons why the people voted for them. So, the Republicans have gotten what they deserved. However, the Democrat alternative is going to be an ugly one. It has become a matter of voting for the lesser of evils, and it's far past time to change things. If four parties had a significant presence in Congress, they would have to learn how to work with each other. They would also know that the people have other choices.

Yes I have been looking at the Constitution Party also. I agree that there needs to be something of this nature to bring the primary parties back to their senses and to realize that they are not the high and mighty authority that all that need to bow down to.