Posted on 05/09/2007 5:54:28 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
MANASSAS, Va., May 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by GrassrootsFreedom.com and Mark Fitzgibbons regarding grassroots legislation, H.R. 2093 introduced May 1 by Congressman Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), and expected to be debated in the House May 15:
"Now that we've finally seen Congressman Meehan's grassroots bill, H.R. 2093, we know that its proponents were selling the public and Congress a bill of goods.
They said: The bill would close a 'Jack Abramoff loophole.'
Fact: Neither Jack Abramoff nor the kick-backs to him under the 'Gimme- Five' scandal would have been disclosed under H.R. 2093.
They said: The bill is targeted at so-called 'Astroturf' lobbying.
Fact: The legislation doesn't target, and never even attempts to define, 'Astroturf.' Instead, it regulates genuine citizen-supported policy communications.
They said: The bill would disclose those who finance grassroots lobbying.
Fact: Corporations, labor unions, billionaires such as George Soros, even foreign governments will be able to finance grassroots communications through front groups and 'straw-man' entities, yet the real financiers would not be disclosed.
"Under the Meehan bill, private, citizen supported communications and efforts by non-lobbyists that somehow 'influence' the public, however remote from Washington citizens may be, to contact even just one government official would constitute 'lobbying activity' subject to quarterly lobbying registration with Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court has already said that is not 'lobbying activity,' and is fully protected by the First Amendment.
"H.R. 2093 is mischievously vague about key terms such as 'influence the public,' which will act to censor political criticism. Washington bureaucrats will decide which speech is still 'free.' Lawyers and lobbyists will make more money than ever as a result.
"Roll Call reported on May 2 in response to complaints that the legislative language was being withheld from outspoken opponents that Congressman Meehan's office denied language of the bill existed before the week of April 23.
"Now that H.R. 2093 is public, facts prove otherwise. Six insider lobbying groups signed and published a March 7 letter to Congress with a detailed description of H.R. 2093, including actual text and terms that are in H.R. 2093. The insider lobbyists include Meehan's own lawyers. GrassrootsFreedom.com has more details.
"Now we know for sure they weren't telling the truth and why."
GrassrootsFreedom.com was created to tell the truth about the grassroots legislation.
May 7, 2007
The Honorable Marty Meehan
2229 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Re: H.R. 2093, the Grassroots Bill: Evidence of Complicity to Deceive Congress/Public, and to Violate Constitution
http://www.grassrootsfreedom.com/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?action=view&CMSArticleID=1381&CMSCategoryID=23
Dear Congressman Meehan:
Roll Call reported on May 2, in response to my call for an investigation into matters involving reformers and your grassroots legislation, that, “[a] Meehan aide said no language existed until last week, and a detailed breakdown of the lawmaker’s concept was shared with both sides. Reform advocates also denied any leak.”[1] On May 1, you introduced H.R. 2093 to regulate communications to the general public under lobbying reform.
Facts, however, contradict the denials by your office and reformer lobbyists. Six reformer groups signed and published a March 7 letter to Congress with a detailed description of H.R. 2093, nearly two months before opponents saw that language. The detail of the March 7 letter, published by Democracy 21, evidences that “insider” lobbyists had privileged access to actual legislative language.[2] The insider lobbyists include your own lawyers.[3]
Beginning at page 4 of their March 7 letter, the reformers state, “[t]he new House provision includes the following elements,” then describe in good detail five of the provisions that are in fact in H.R. 2093. That March 7 letter even contains exact quotations of actual language and key operational terms that are in H.R. 2093. For example:
The provision provides that the definition of a ‘lobbying firm’ includes a firm, not previously registered, which is retained by a client to conduct ‘paid communications campaigns to influence the general public to lobby Congress,’ but this would only apply if the firm receives total overall income of at least $100,000 during a quarterly reporting period to conduct such activities.[4]
The March 7 letter, therefore, proves that legislative language existed and was possessed by insider lobbyists, including your own lawyers, long before the week of April 23.
The issue then becomes why your office misrepresented this fact to the news media.
Opponents of regulating private communications to the public under lobbying reform are not only well known, but have been very outspoken about the constitutional proscriptions against prior versions of the grassroots legislation. Because reformers had the language nearly two months before opponents did, no one other than the six reformers could publish any description, warning, critique or objection about the “new” House language until now on the precipice of a vote in Congress.
Everyone in this process, including you, the principal and outspoken proponent and sponsor the H.R. 2093 and prior legislation that would regulate the grassroots, was aware of strong objections to, and constitutional proscriptions against, regulating grassroots policy communications among citizens, since that is core political speech.
The United States Supreme Court has twice rejected efforts by Congress to regulate communications to the general public under lobbying laws, saying that “lobbying activity” is direct contact with Congress, not communication to the public.[5] Since then, Congress itself has repeatedly rejected attempts by a few to regulate grassroots communications as lobbying. Most recently, the United States Senate stripped similar provisions of Section 220 out of S. 1 based on constitutional objections.
I provided your office with an editorial describing the “fraudulent case” for the grassroots legislation, showing how the principal arguments for this unconstitutional legislation were materially false and misleading.[6] I also twice objected in writing to the “leak” of legislative language to privileged insiders, and the fact that such language was being withheld from known, outspoken opponents.[7] Your office could have responded any way it wished, but never responded at all.
The insider lawyer/lobbyists used their privileged access to legislative language to further mislead Congress, the public and the news media about this unconstitutional legislation. For example, their March 7 letter to Congress states, “[t]his new disclosure provision for lobbying firms would close a major loophole in the lobbying laws, which was starkly illustrated by the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals.”
My May 3 letter to the Judiciary Committee about your bill explains why that claim is patently false.[8] The use of the Abramoff scandal, therefore, like other false justifications offered by proponents, is false pretense designed to mislead people and induce them to surrender constitutional rights. Deceit is being used to violate the First Amendment rights of many, yet your legislation is expressly written to allow many wealthy special interests avoid disclosure and reporting of financing the same type of grassroots communications on issues that citizens and their causes must report.[9]
It is apparent that (1) there was complicity in giving proponents time to mislead Congress, the news media and the general public about the legislation, (2) opponents were prevented from airing criticisms for consideration by Congress and the public until H.R. 2093 was on the precipice of a vote in Congress, and (3) denial of these facts to the news media evidences an attempt to conceal knowing and willful misconduct.
Given that this situation involves legislation targeted expressly at constitutional rights beyond the authority of Congress to regulate, I believe there is reasonable cause for an investigation into whether there has been complicity in an attempt to deceive Congress and the public for the purpose of violating the Constitution.
If the legislation were to become law, litigation would certainly ensue. That litigation would afford plaintiffs the ability to seek discovery into these matters, including the financing of these attempts by your lawyers, insider lobbyists and others to deceive the Congress and the public for the purpose of violating the Constitution.
There are, of course, many important issues with which the country is now dealing, which make the free exercise of First Amendment rights even more critical. I therefore urge you and any other primary or co-sponsors to withdraw H.R. 2093 as a matter of principle.
Very truly yours,
Mark J. Fitzgibbons
cc: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
The Honorable John Boehner
The Honorable John Conyers
The Honorable Chris Van Hollen
Pointless to target Meehan- he’s leaving office.
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.