Posted on 01/11/2007 7:50:59 AM PST by Old_Mil
The grassroots lobbying section of U.S. Senate Bill 1 (Section 220) contains onerous reporting requirements (on a quarterly basis), and civil fines of up to $100,000 for failing to comply. The effect by AFA and other grassroots groups to get you information on any bill before Congress will be profound.
Under Senate Bill 1, AFA would have to report the issues, employees, contractors and dollars spent in what is called "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" (that phrase is not defined). This reporting requirement is triggered by two actions: (1) a lobbying "contact" – a personal or written communication with an individual in the executive or legislative branch of the federal government concerning public policy issues, from legislation to nominations; and (2) communications with grassroots (that’s you) that "influence" them to contact the executive or legislative branches ("influence" is not defined, but it apparently doesn't even have to include a specific "call to action.") There is no minimum dollar spending requirement that triggers the reporting requirement by AFA for our efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying...
...The bill makes exemptions for larger, organized groups who employ paid lobbyists, who don’t dominantly rely on public communication (to people like you) to get their messages out...
...Basically these new rules were written to isolate pro-family and conservative Christian organizations. Large corporations (which spend millions in lobbying expenses) would be exempt. Communications aimed at an organization’s “members, employees, officers or shareholders” would be exempt. That means that groups such as the AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org, National Education Association and other organized groups would be exempt.
An Assault on the Rules of the Senate
At his swearing-in in the Senate chamber in March 1925, Dawes was called upon to deliver a brief inaugural address, a tradition that dated back to John Adams in 1789. What the audience heard, however, was far from traditional. As the Senate's new presiding officer, Dawes addressed himself to "methods of effective procedure," rather than any particular policies or programs. He then launched into an attack on the Senate rules, "which, in their present form, place power in the hands of individuals to an extent, at times, subversive of the fundamental principles of free representative government." The rules of the Senate, he declared, ran contrary to the principles of constitutional government, and under these rules "the rights of the Nation and of the American people have been overlooked."
Dawes focused his attack on filibusters, which at that time were being carried out most frequently by the small band of progressive Republicans, such as Robert La Follette, Sr., and George Norris , who held the balance of power in the Senate. Dawes declared that Rule 22, which required a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to shut off debate, "at times enables Senators to consume in oratory those last precious minutes of a session needed for momentous decisions," thus placing great power in the hands of a minority of senators. "Who would dare oppose changes in the rules necessary to insure that the business of the United States should always be conducted in the interests of the Nation and never be in danger of encountering a situation where one man or a minority of men might demand unreasonable concessions under threat of blocking the business of the Government?" he asked. Unless the rules were reformed, they would "lessen the effectiveness, prestige, and dignity of the United States Senate." He insisted that "reform in the present rules of the Senate is demanded not only by American public opinion, but I venture to say in the individual consciences of a majority of the Members of the Senate itself." He concluded by appealing to senators' consciences and patriotism in correcting these defects in their rules.
Since Dawes had not given advance copies of the speech to the press or anyone else, no one had anticipated his diatribe. In the audience, President Calvin Coolidge attempted indifference, but could not hide his discomfort. Dawes had managed to upstage the president's own inaugural address, which was to follow at ceremonies outside on the Capitol's east front. As the senators proceeded to the inaugural platform, they talked of nothing else but their anger over Dawes' effrontery, making Coolidge's address anticlimactic. After the ceremony, Dawes compounded the ill will when he joined the president to ride back to the White House, instead of returning to the chamber to adjourn the Senate. In the Senate chamber, there was considerable confusion. Senator James A. Reed of Missouri noted that the Senate did not adjourn, nor did it recess. "It simply broke up."
Most senators were less than receptive to Dawes' advice. "Dawes showed as little knowledge of the Senate's rules as he did good taste," snapped Democratic minority leader Joseph T. Robinson. "It was exactly what should not have been said," added Robinson's colleague from Arkansas, Thaddeus Caraway. "I regret that such occasion was perverted into a farce," complained Senator Claude Swanson of Virginia. "I have an opinion of the spectacle but do not care to express it," was George Norris' response, and Republican majority leader Charles Curtis declined to make any public comment on the vice president's remarks. But while the senators disapproved, columnist Mark Sullivan observed that the public was delighted. Sullivan described Dawes as a hero who had finally made a dent "in that fine old encrusted Senatorial tradition, buttressed by antique rules and practices, and solemnly defended by conservative and radical Senators alike."
___
Coolidge's sole mistake was not backing Dawes to the hilt.
Regards, Ivan
Democrat or Republican, this is wrong!
Shocking Senatorial Votes
"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their
level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
The following senators voted against making English the
official language of America :
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mik ulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
&nb sp; Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Now, the following are the senators who voted
to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits.They are
grouped by home state. If a state is not listed, there was
no voting representative.
Alaska :Stevens (R)
Arizona:McCain (R)
Arkansas:Lincoln (D) ; Pryor (D)
California:Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
Colorado :Salazar (D)
Connecticut:Dodd (D) Lieberman (D)
Delaware:Biden (D) Carper (D)
Florida:Martinez (R)
Hawaii:Akaka (D) Inouye (D)
Illinois:Durbin (D) Obama (D)
Indiana:; Bayh (D) Lugar (R)
Iowa:Harkin (D)
Kansas :Brownback (R)
Louisiana:Landrieu (D)
Maryland:Mikulski (D) Sarbanes (D)
Massachusetts:Kennedy (D) Kerry (D)
Montana:Baucus (D)
Nebraska:Hagel (R)
Nevada:Reid (D)
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D) Menendez (D)
New Mexico: Bingaman (D)
New York: Clinton (D) Schumer (D)
North Dakota: Dorgan (D)
Ohio:DeWine (R) Voinovich(R)
Oregon:Wyden (D)
Pennsylvania:Specter (R)
Rhode Island: Chafee (R) Reed (D)
South Carolina: Graham (R)
South Dakota: Johnson (D)
Vermont:Jeffords (I) Leahy (D)
Washington:&nb sp; Cantwell (D) Murray (D)
West Virginia : Rockefeller (D), by Not Voting
Wisconsin:Feingold (D) Kohl (D)
SEND THIS TO ALL YOU KNOW. THE
ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE
UNITED STATES NEEDS TO KNOW
THIS INFORMATION, UNLESS THEY
DON'T MIND SHARING THEIR
SOCIAL SECURITY WITH FOREIGN
WORKERS who didn't pay in a dime
To big government lovers, "reform" means shutting down the Constitutional rights of free speech and to petition our government.
The trend to dispossess, control and subjugate Americans continues with this proposed law.
Just off the phones with several senators aids and with Senator McConnell office who will be proposing amendment 20 sponsored by Senator Bob Bennett to strip section 220 from Senate Bill One (1) on the senate floor today.
I knew nothing of this history. Thank you for pointing it out. Vice President Dawes was right. The filibuster is a damper on free governance. It was used to hold up civil rights legislation for over 70 years. It is a tool of the minority to work its will, despite their being a sufficient majority to pass legislation.
--we are generally better off if "nothing" gets done by Congress than "something"--
I understand what you mean, but in my view the people deserve to get the government they elected, good and hard. As a movement we can't complain about Democrats filibustering judges, and then be in favor of the constant use of the filibuster when we are in the minority.
I had heard that the House had a similar measure under consideration and had rolled it up with their ethics rules revisions. Called my congress critter, she claimed to know nothing about it. Still have not found out if the House has acted or not. No doubt that the new Democrat majority is trying to get this done under the radar screen.
So Democrats don't believe in free speech. So what else is new?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.