Grassroots Lobbying Restrictions Resurface

By staff - May 9, 2007 - comment

A proposed set of restrictions on grassroots lobbying that was defeated in the Senate has reared its ugly head in the House in a different, though just as dangerous, form, with the chamber moving toward a vote before the Memorial Day recess. The legislation, if passed, threatens to severely encroach on the First Amendment right to petition the government and encumber pro-family organizations and other groups from communicating their concerns with interested individuals.

Last week, Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) introduced H.R. 2093, which would require many pro-family organizations, churches, and even individuals that encourage others to express their concerns to their elected leaders to register as “lobbying firms” and provide detailed quarterly reports of all their activities and estimated funds spent to stimulate grassroots efforts.

If you are concerned that H.R. 2093 would severely restrict your First Amendment rights to receive information on the issues before Congress and to express your concerns to your elected officials, please tell your congressman to oppose Rep. Meehan’s grassroots lobbying legislation, H.R. 2093.

Not surprisingly, the bill does not even mention the word “grassroots,” but merely redefines terms such as “lobbying firm” to include average citizens as “lobbyists.” More specifically, H.R. 2093 would classify as a “lobbying firm” “a person or entity that is retained by 1 or more clients (other than that person or entity) to engage in paid communications campaigns to influence the general public to lobby Congress, and receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $100,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.”

Under H.R. 2093, many pro-family organizations would spend needless time tracking the “who, what, when, where, and why” of their communications, as well as the estimated money spent on such activities. Those who fail to register as a “lobbying firm” or provide inaccurate quarterly reports could face $200,000 fines per infraction and even 10 years in prison, if the bill is merged with the Senate-passed S. 1. It appears many supporters of H.R. 2093 simply are tired of hearing the concerns of faith-affirming Americans and wish to keep them in the dark on what issues Congress is debating.

The House Judiciary Committee could mark up the bill, which would likely be offered as an amendment to a larger lobbying reform package, as soon as May 11, and the full House could begin debate as soon as late next week.

The Senate squashed proposed restrictions on grassroots communications in January by passing 55-43 Sen. Robert Bennett’s (R-UT) amendment to S. 1. But if the House passes Rep. Meehan’s dangerous legislation, it could be ultimately included in a final bill negotiated by a House-Senate conference committee.

If you are concerned that H.R. 2093 would severely restrict your First Amendment rights to receive information on the issues before Congress and to express your concerns to your elected officials, please tell your congressman to oppose Rep. Meehan’s grassroots lobbying legislation, H.R. 2093.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, National, Religious Liberty

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com