|
Soldier4Christ
|
 |
« on: May 18, 2007, 10:24:29 AM » |
|
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.
|
