ACLU, Conservatives Team to Fight New Law

Newsmax
Jan. 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The American Civil Liberties Union and the Traditional Values Coalition have joined as allies from opposite ends of the political spectrum to stop a new law proposed by the Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate.

The law — the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 — would entangle nonprofit groups in a Web of red tape every time they tried to issue political alerts to their members.

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said that if the legislation passed as written, "it would be like Capitol Hill hanging out a big sign: ‘Do not disturb — unless you are registered.'"

A so-called "Right-Left" teleconference press briefing was held on Thursday afternoon where the united line was that while the main intention of supporters of the Senate bill is to limit the impact of what they call "big-dollar advertising," it would chill the constitutionally protected activity of many advocacy organizations.

Leaders from the American Civil Liberties Union, Traditional Values Coalition, Free Speech Coalition, National Right to Life, and other concerned groups were all on hand to discuss opposition to the bill.

It's Section 220 of the Senate bill that is causing all the furor. That section would subject communications from grass-roots organizations to registration and reporting requirements. They would have to report directly to the secretary of the Senate and clerk of the House any time these groups spent money to communicate to their constituents on issues that are before Congress.

Critics of Section 220 suggest that groups such as Focus on the Family, The America Family Association, the Family Research Council, Vision America, and a host of others would be ensnared in bureaucratic red tape that would increase their communications costs and result in a weakened effort to let members know what elected leaders are doing in the executive and legislative branches of government.

According to Carrie Gordon Earl, senior director of Issue Analysis for Focus on the Family Action, this legislation "affects folks who, on a regular basis, communicate with the grass roots and pass along information."

Tony Perkins, director of the Family Research Council added, "This should be called the ‘Silence of the Citizens Act of 2007.'"

The teleconference conferees noted a host of reasons they have joined forces to oppose Section 220. It will have the following effects, they say:

# Require registration and reporting as lobbyists by individuals and organizations who may never have face-to-face contact with members of Congress or staff and who only call upon citizens to weigh in a legislative issue

# Require registration and reporting as lobbyists by vendors hired by any entity to mobilize public involvement in a legislative issue in Congress

# Require amounts paid by an organization for such communications to be publicly reported.

# Require the establishment of fines and penalties for failure to report amounts spent to mobilize public involvement in legislative issues

#

Triggering Registration

The groups opposing Sec. 220 noted the types of communications that would trigger registration and reporting — any communication that reaches 500 or more people, including:

# Direct mail — including prospecting fund-raising mail that includes communications or petitions to Congress

# Telephone calls

# Newspaper, magazine, print ads

# Paid organizers, including people who are hired to organize a rally, demonstration, or public meeting that spotlights an issue before Congress

# Radio/television ads urging people to call their senator or representative

# Internet, e-mail, Web site — no exemption for Internet communications

# Bloggers

The allied groups suggested several examples of communications that in their opinion would be covered. For instance, if a state, local, or national political party committee sends a prospecting fund-raising letter that includes a "Petition to the President" along with the solicitation, both the party committee and potentially the direct mail vendor must register as lobbyists.

If a grass-roots lobbying organization runs radio ads in the congressional districts of members on a particular committee urging people to call their representative to vote for/against a particular bill, the organization must register as a lobbying entity.

Each vendor involved in producing communications for organizations (direct mail, media producers, media buyers, etc.) must also register as lobbyists if an organization pays a vendor for a communication that costs $25,000 or more during the quarter.

If a pastor calls on the congregation to mobilize in support of/opposition to a particular piece of legislation every Sunday for several weeks, and includes information in a church bulletin, on the Web site, or in a newsletter — the church must register as a lobbying firm.

Andrea S. Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition noted that the curious thing about this legislation is that "it exempts communications to shareholders, officers, employees, and members from these reporting requirements. Those exempted include labor unions, corporations, and even foreign companies. Why is there a carve-out for these entities?"

The conferees are hopeful that an amendment quashing the nettlesome Section 220 will make their worries academic.

The conferees Thursday afternoon noted that the Senate might vote on the bill as early as this afternoon or evening.

© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.