ChristiansUnite Forums

Bill sees churches as political lobbies 
Grassroots advocacy again under fire from Congress

A Christian law firm is launching an urgent petition drive to try to convince Congress to drop plans to re-classify Christian ministers and ministries as "lobbyists," a move that would create reams of red tape and subject the leaders to fines of up to $50,000 if they don't follow all of the fine print.

Jay Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice had warned several months ago when a similar proposal was defeated in the U.S. Senate that the issue may return.

"We're still deeply concerned that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others will attempt to push through these dangerous restrictions in the House," he had said when Section 220 of S.B. 1 was rejected.

Now it has been.

"This legislation, in essence, attempts to override the United States Constitution," said the appeal from the ACLJ. "What we're dealing with here is the work of politicians who want to control, limit, and silence Christians and conservative groups."

"We MUST fight back, and quickly," the group said.

The plan now is called House Resolution 2093, but would do just about the same thing as the earlier Section 220 in the Senate. "House Resolution 2093 would drastically affect churches that speak out on issues like partial-birth abortion, same-sex marriage, conservative judicial nominees, and military chaplains' right to pray," the ACLJ said. "It would also impact Christian groups using TV, radio, or the Internet to mobilize citizens around an issue."

The proposal, as did the earlier plan, could require pastors, church leaders, advocacy organizations and even some individuals to register as lobbyists, under penalty of fines of up to $50,000, the ACLJ said.

The ACLJ's protest petition is available online.

Sekulow noted that he's already assembled a legal team and produced a legal analysis, available on the organization's website, that details the dangers of the bill.

"We are preparing a complaint to file in federal court if necessary," he said.

Sekulow's analysis said the Senate was wise to reject the plan, on a bipartisan basis in January, and recommended the House do the same.

Many of the phrases in the legislation are similar or identical to the earlier proposal.

"The main difference between H.R. 2093 and Section 220 of S. 1 is that H.R. 2093 would simply shift the bulk of the financial and regulatory burden of registration and reporting from the grassroots organizations themselves to the media companies that help distribute their message," the analysis said.

"H.R. 2093 would chill the exercise of First Amendment rights by requiring the media firms that help grassroots organizations to share their message to register with the government and disclose information about the groups' activities," it continued.

"The cost of compliance with federal lobbying laws – including the need to hire lawyers, accountants, and other personnel to ensure that all legal requirements are met – would be great. Undoubtedly, many companies will make their grassroots clients bear the cost of compliance with the lobbying law rather than imposing the burden upon their entire clientele. Moreover, some companies would stop working with grassroots organizations altogether to avoid the onerous burden of lobbying registration."

The real problems come up in the definition of lobbying and employees. "For example, if a church or other non-profit client organization receives, spends, or agrees to spend $100,000 within a quarterly period to influence the general public to contact members of Congress about legal issues, an employee that directs how that money is spent – such as a pastor, treasurer, or public policy director – could be considered a 'lobbying firm,'" the analysis said.

Also, if a church or other group spends just $5,000 to encourage the general public to contact members of Congress about important policy issues, the printing, publishing or other media companies would be required to provide information about the group and its issues.

"H.R. 2093 casts an unduly broad net of regulation over many churches, public advocacy organizations, and individuals that are not 'lobbyists' and subjects the media companies … to burdensome registration and reporting requirements," the analysis ssaid.

In the end, First Amendment violations would abound under the proposal, Sekulow's organization found.

When the earlier plan was defeated, James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family Action, said, "The big winners in this battle are the American people. Getting rid of the onerous grass-roots lobbying restrictions in S.1 is a triumph of the representative form of government our Founding Fathers established 230 years ago."

He had interrupted his regular schedule of broadcasts to alert people to the legislation that would have imposed huge limits on Christian organizations.

That original plan would have required the pro-family groups to provide documentation of their actions to the government any time they try to spark any "grass-roots" action.

Phone calls, personal visits, e-mails, magazines, broadcasts, phone banks, appearances, travel, fund-raising and other items all would be subject to government tabulation, verification and audits, Dobson said his broadcast.

"What is being illustrated here is a passion by congressional liberals to consolidate power and operate within a cloak of secrecy. It is unconscionable and unconstitutional. We will not be intimidated by attempts to criminalize those who would hold Washington accountable. The right to do so is as American as apple pie," Dobson said.

The Senate plan, sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., was listed as a proposal "To provide greater transparency in the legislative process," however Dobson was joined by American Family Association Chairman Donald Wildmon, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer in urging listeners to flood Capitol Hill with phone calls demanding those speech limits be removed.

WOW! - Those pesky Christians just won't sit down and shut up, so Washington is going to try and force us to sit down and shut up. Pelosi and Reid - are you listening? - Your answer is "NO!" The people won't stand for this, so go waste your time on some other ultra-liberal cause. Go on a toilet paper conservation crusade or something else at least this important.

(http://img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif)

It looks like they took at least half of your advice or at least were made to.


2nd plan to make churches 'lobbyists' defeated
Grassroots advocacy under fire in Congress

A Christian organization is announcing the success – for now – of its urgent petition drive to convince Congress to drop plans to re-classify ministers and ministries as "lobbyists," which would create reams of red tape and subject leaders to fines of up to $50,000 if they didn't follow the fine print.

Jay Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice said the language was "troubling" and would have created an "extreme burden" for churches and non-profits if they wanted to exercise First Amendment rights to speak out on moral issues.

"We heard from more than 180,000 Americans who wanted this provision removed and we're delighted that it has been defeated," he said. "Most Americans clearly understand that lobbying reform does not translate to threatening the constitutional freedoms that permit Christians to speak out on issues that matter most."

He had warned when a similar proposal was defeated in January in the U.S. Senate that the issue may return, and it did.

"This legislation, in essence, attempts to override the United States Constitution," the ACLJ had said in its petition appeal on the new U.S. House plan. "What we're dealing with here is the work of politicians who want to control, limit, and silence Christians and conservative groups."

"This is an important free speech victory for churches and non-profit organizations. We stand ready to meet any further challenge should Congressman [Martin] Meehan [D-Mass.] attempt to reintroduce this troubling amendment on the House floor when the lobbying reform bill is considered next week. We will vigorously oppose such a move if it occurs," Sekulow said.

The ACLJ said the newest proposal, House Resolution 2093, would have done the same as the earlier Senate plan, in Section 220 of S. 1.

The proposal, as did the earlier plan, could have required pastors, church leaders, advocacy organizations and even some individuals to register as lobbyists, under penalty of fines of up to $50,000, the ACLJ said.

The ACLJ's protest petition is available online.

And Sekulow noted that he has assembled a legal team and produced a legal analysis, available on the organization's website, that details the dangers of the proposal.

"We are preparing a complaint to file in federal court if necessary," he said.

Sekulow's analysis said the Senate was wise to reject the plan, on a bipartisan basis in January, and the House should do the same because many of the phrases in the legislation are similar or identical to the earlier proposal.

"The main difference between H.R. 2093 and Section 220 of S. 1 is that H.R. 2093 would simply shift the bulk of the financial and regulatory burden of registration and reporting from the grassroots organizations themselves to the media companies that help distribute their message," the analysis said.

"H.R. 2093 would chill the exercise of First Amendment rights by requiring the media firms that help grassroots organizations to share their message to register with the government and disclose information about the groups' activities," it continued.

"The cost of compliance with federal lobbying laws – including the need to hire lawyers, accountants, and other personnel to ensure that all legal requirements are met – would be great. Undoubtedly, many companies will make their grassroots clients bear the cost of compliance with the lobbying law rather than imposing the burden upon their entire clientele. Moreover, some companies would stop working with grassroots organizations altogether to avoid the onerous burden of lobbying registration."

The real problems come up in the definition of lobbying and employees. "For example, if a church or other non-profit client organization receives, spends, or agrees to spend $100,000 within a quarterly period to influence the general public to contact members of Congress about legal issues, an employee that directs how that money is spent – such as a pastor, treasurer, or public policy director – could be considered a 'lobbying firm,'" the analysis said.

Also, if a church or other group spends just $5,000 to encourage the general public to contact members of Congress about important policy issues, the printing, publishing or other media companies would be required to provide information about the group and its issues.

"H.R. 2093 casts an unduly broad net of regulation over many churches, public advocacy organizations, and individuals that are not 'lobbyists' and subjects the media companies … to burdensome registration and reporting requirements," the analysis ssaid.

In the end, First Amendment violations would abound under the proposal, Sekulow's organization found.

When the earlier plan was defeated, James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family Action, said, "The big winners in this battle are the American people. Getting rid of the onerous grass-roots lobbying restrictions in S.1 is a triumph of the representative form of government our Founding Fathers established 230 years ago."

He had interrupted his regular schedule of broadcasts to alert people to the legislation that would have imposed huge limits on Christian organizations.

That original plan would have required the pro-family groups to provide documentation of their actions to the government any time they try to spark any "grass-roots" action.

Phone calls, personal visits, e-mails, magazines, broadcasts, phone banks, appearances, travel, fund-raising and other items all would be subject to government tabulation, verification and audits, Dobson said his broadcast.

"What is being illustrated here is a passion by congressional liberals to consolidate power and operate within a cloak of secrecy. It is unconscionable and unconstitutional. We will not be intimidated by attempts to criminalize those who would hold Washington accountable. The right to do so is as American as apple pie," Dobson said.

The Senate plan, sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., was listed as a proposal "To provide greater transparency in the legislative process," however Dobson was joined by American Family Association Chairman Donald Wildmon, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer in urging listeners to flood Capitol Hill with phone calls demanding those speech limits be removed.

I would say that they need to pass legislation on the real lobbyists. Those are the folks who buy and possess many of them. They buy expensive gifts for them, send them on trips, and line their pockets with cash when it comes to election time.

In the case of Christian grassroots efforts, we aren't trying to buy and sell elected officials, just to speak our minds and exercise our right of free speech in a free country.

As the people, we are supposed to tell our elected officials what we like and what we don't like. AFTER ALL, those elected officials are servants of the people - NOT the other way around. Pelosi and Reid - are you listening? - We can take you out of office! Don't mess with our rights and freedoms! That will be a NO! NO!, and you will be sent to your room without supper.

LOL!  (http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb87/mom2bran/ReidPelosi.jpg)

 ;D   ;D   ROFL - I love the picture and had to snag it. It's quite appropriate.   ;D

LOL that is quite funny.

This bill is just plain scary in many aspects.

Not only in the church aspect as has been discussed but it also moves us closer to a pure 2 party political system.  As it makes it harder and harder for upcoming party possibilities to start. 

It also moves closer to making the actions of our government to being more secretive.  If CU spent more than $100K in 3 months it could be construed as a grassroots organization based on the posts here in the forum.  It makes the line that separated reporting on issues and calls to take action much grayer.

I think that the current actions of the democrats show that is exactly what is wanted. In fact some of the other actions indicate they are trying to move to a one party system as they are taking many actions to do away with the republicans. The sad thing of it is that most republicans don't see it and are buying into these things.