The Energon Pub

by **Nemesis Cyberplex** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:07 pm

I had heard today while in church about this, so I looked it up, albeit it's on a biast website:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JayS ... our_church

Nancy Pelosi hasn’t been Speaker of the House for two weeks yet and there is already proposed legislation which would be the most significant encroachment ever into the affairs and ability of churches and other organizations to communicate. Under the guise of lobbying reform, Speaker Pelosi and others have proposed legislation greatly expanding the scope of lobbying regulation which would have a significant impact on churches, pastors, religious denominations, public interest organizations, civic organizations and other nonprofit groups. Even private individuals who voluntarily pay for media to distribute important messages to the general public on political matters would be impacted.

So draconian is the proposed Lobbying Reform Bill that it would actually impose registration and reporting requirements on churches and other nonprofit organizations. This is because the definition of “lobbyist” and “lobbying firms” includes specifically grassroots-organizing efforts. Under this broad-based regulatory scheme that Nancy Pelosi is advocating, many churches, especially larger churches with TV and radio ministries, would be subject to registration as a lobbying organization. Failure to comply with these lobbying requirements could result in fines and even criminal sanctions. Churches and their pastors who address the social issues of the day and encourage members and non-members alike to mobilize for action, including communications with Congress, would be required to make certain initial and quarterly disclosures to the United States Congress about their activities.

Under the House version of the Bill, a church or organization would be considered a “grassroots lobbying firm” subject to this law if the group attempted to influence the general public to voluntarily contact federal officials in order to express their own views on a federal issue. Furthermore, many large churches and ministries utilize mass media to communicate their message. Under this House Bill by Nancy Pelosi, these communications, as long as they are directed to at least one person who is not a member of the church, would fall under this new Bill. Finally, if the church spends an aggregate of only $50,000 or more for such efforts in a quarterly period, they are now required to register as lobbyists. Many ministries spend $50,000 or more a month for air time.

This attempt to slip in this onerous requirement on churches and other organizations must be stopped. The rationale behind Speaker Pelosi and others’ desire to silence churches is obvious. Pastors addressing the moral issues of the day have been able to mobilize tens of thousands of individuals to speak out on various issues. But under this proposed legislation, if a church or denomination spent $50,000 of its own resources on air time to encourage people to support the confirmation of federal judicial nominees or to lend its support to a federal marriage amendment, then that church or denomination would be classified as a grassroots lobbying firm. This is one of the most significant violations of free exercise of religion and the freedom of political speech in our Nation’s history. Some have said that this plan is the most comprehensive regulation of political speech that has ever been put forward by Congress.

As one of the lawyers who argued against the campaign finance law at the Supreme Court of the United States, I can tell you that this increased government regulation of churches is not only unwarranted but also unwise. In my argument before the Court, I asserted that a prohibition on minors contributing to a political campaign was unconstitutional, and that students have fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association. A unanimous Supreme Court agreed with me. The same is true here. Lobbying reform can be put forward without impacting the ability of pastors and churches to speak out on the moral issues of the day, which is part of their prophetic responsibilities. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides for the right of the citizens to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Previous lobbying legislation recognized this right to petition the government and specifically carved out exceptions in the law. Unfortunately and not surprisingly, Speaker Pelosi’s proposals have no such protection for the ability of our citizens to petition the government. In essence, this proposed legislation attempts to override the United States Constitution.

This is not the way our Republic is structured. Congress has no authority to amend our United States Constitution on its own accord. If the Freedom of Speech and the Free Exercise of Religion Clauses mean anything, they mean that church leaders and other citizens have the right to address the moral issues of the day and encourage participation of the citizenry in support of or opposition to legislative initiatives. Nancy Pelosi’s proposed legislation would have stopped Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. from gathering support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, as he addressed the social issues from the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA, he might well have had to register as a lobbyist.

What we need to do now is exercise our existing First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of association and the ability to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Our grievance is simple: Congress cannot silence churches and other organizations from grassroots involvement in critical issues of our day. Let us now petition the government aggressively and support an amendment to this proposed legislation by Senators Bennett, McConnell, Kyl, and Cornyn that would eliminate the provisions of this lobbying reform dealing with grassroots efforts. This way we can ensure that churches and many other public interest organizations would not have to register as lobbyists.

....bottom line is, I don't really know that much about politics, & everybody I keep hearing about this from is seeing it as a bad thing that could ultimately lead to the government telling churches what they can & can't say behind the pulpit, but from what I can see, it sounds like what they're trying to do is keep bigger churches from doing stuff other lobbyists can't... like throw money around to sway votes...but not tell them what they can & can't say/believe . But like I said, I'm not too knowledgable about such things. Could somebody elaborate about this, & hell, even start a good discussion about it?

News Credits: 1 · by **Menbailee** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:45 pm

I expected the article somehow to spin the legislation in a way that would sway my opinion against it, but even with this interpretation of the bill in its most negative right, it sounds to me more like treating all large lobbying institutions equally, regardless of their religious affiliation. That's a good thing. If an organization is acting politically, deal with its political actions. Do not interfere in any way, shape, or form with worship. What we're seeing in this article sounds like fundamentalist fury at the possibility of no longer being able to get away with lobbying on different terms from everyone else.

by **FlameStrike** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:22 pm

Menbailee wrote:--it sounds to me more like treating all large lobbying institutions equally, regardless of their religious affiliation. That's a good thing. If an organization is acting politically, deal with its political actions. Do not interfere in any way, shape, or form with worship.

Agreed. It actually sounds to me like it might well help restore a separation of church and state. That's something I am strongly in favor of.

News Credits: 2 · by **Archibald Witwicky** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:59 pm

Concurring with the previous two posters.

As hard as this this article tries to force the reader to beleive the proposed bill is wrong, it only convinces me that it's a good idea, for reasons previously stated.

by **Nemesis Cyberplex** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:40 am

I found a more updated article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/18/ ... ethics.ap/

This part in particular I though was relavent:

The Senate, on a 55-43 vote, approved an amendment pushed by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, to strip a provision requiring reporting of "grass-roots" lobbying.

I'm assuming that means that even though churches active in lobbying are going to have to register, they're not going to keeping tabs of what they say & who they say it to...just basically where they throw their money around??

I guess my biggest problem with grasping this is that I don't exactly know what makes one a "lobbyist". I mean, from what I've read, including looking it up on Wikipedia (& mirriam-webster, for that matter) it seems like if anybody walks up to somebody else & says, "hey, vote for ______" , they are a lobbyist, & would therefore have to register.

I'm so confused.

by **Autobotcity** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:33 pm

I guess my biggest problem with grasping this is that I don't exactly know what makes one a "lobbyist". I mean, from what I've read, including looking it up on Wikipedia (& mirriam-webster, for that matter) it seems like if anybody walks up to somebody else & says, "hey, vote for ______" , they are a lobbyist, & would therefore have to register.

I'm so confused.

Lobbyists are people that, usually through an organisation, try to push their personal agenda into politics. They try to 'convince' politicians to support their agenda during votes on bills and other forms of legislation.

This could be for example an Israelian lobby for support to Israel, an environmentalist lobby to reduce greenhouse gasses, an industry lobby for less taxes on fuel so they can sell more stuff, etc.

In case of the religious lobby, you have to think of items such as abortion ban, euthanasia ban, gay marriage ban, obtaining subsidiaries to churches, the religious influence on schools (certain more fundamentalist religious groups in the USA want for example creationism being taught instead of evolution), etc.

How do they do this? By offering to use their own influence within their branch or social group to support a politician. Certain religious groups supported Bush for example through rallying or advising voters to vote for Bush if he'd help them and they probably helped to fund his campaign. (Same goes for lots of other lobbyists for both sides, obviously, depending on the type of lobbyist, the scratching of ones back if they scratch theirs differs per group).

by **Just Negare** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:25 pm

This kind of reminds me of a bill proposed in the NZL parliament. They want to change what classes as a charity, and if a church group or some such lobbys politically or takes a political stance then they'll lose their class as a charaity and have to pay taxes and the like. I think its rather rude, actually, basically its saying "Don't tell us there are poor people in NZL because we will revoke your tax free status".

by **Autobotcity** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:36 am

Poohy Ol' Negare wrote:This kind of reminds me of a bill proposed in the NZL parliament. They want to change what classes as a charity, and if a church group or some such lobbys politically or takes a political stance then they'll lose their class as a charaity and have to pay taxes and the like. I think its rather rude, actually, basically its saying "Don't tell us there are poor people in NZL because we will revoke your tax free status".

Is that the point? I don't think that'd be the reason. If you're involved in political activities, regardless of the topic, that's something different than being an institution or something that aids the poor. In principal, if you'd subsidise lobbying parties that promote themselves as charity, you're basically using government funds to support a lobby.

Can't you get around that really easy though, by simply seperating the lobby group from the charity organisation wise? Then you could have the charity support the lobby group, rather than the involving the charity directly in politics.

News Credits: 33 · by **Glyph** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:46 am

Autobotcity wrote:If you're involved in political activities, regardless of the topic, that's something different than being an institution or something that aids the poor.

Out of curiosity, how would that apply to, for example, a charity which aids the poor and wants to lobby about a cause of poverty?

News Credits: 1 · by **Menbailee** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:24 am

I think it would be important to treat such a charity as a lobby group insofar as they lobby. After all, a group could lobby for suspending all welfare under the argument that it would help the poor learn to fend for themselves or lobby for communist policies under the argument that they will cure all poverty, either way with the claim that their group helps the poor. There is a particular politics to the kind of aid which any given charity advocates, and if those politics enter into engagement with government policy, that engagement should be treated on an equal basis with others.

News Credits: 349 · by **Bed Bugs** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:57 pm

I like the bill. To be quite frank, I'm tired of seeing commercials from "Care Net" on TV. It's a big anti-abortion ad that keeps running around here, and if this legislation removes it from television, all the better.

To me, about %95 of people already have their minds made up regarding the issue, so I see no point in them spending these tens of thousands of dollars of donations (which COULD have been used for something better, like say, given to the poor? :roll:

).

Churches need to worry less about forcing fundamentalism down the rest of the country's throats and worry more about helping those that can't help themselves, like a good (insert religion here) would.

Put the charity back in church, take the politics out, and this country will be for the better.

News Credits: 25 · by **Ironhidensh** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:17 pm

Fender Bender wrote:
To me, about %95 of people already have their minds made up regarding the issue, so I see no point in them spending these tens of thousands of dollars of donations (which COULD have been used for something better, like say, given to the poor? ).

No. Put it in education. If we properly educated our kids, abortion would drastically decrease, damn near to the point where it doesn't exsist.

News Credits: 349 · by **Bed Bugs** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:11 pm

Ironhidensh wrote:
Fender Bender wrote:
To me, about %95 of people already have their minds made up regarding the issue, so I see no point in them spending these tens of thousands of dollars of donations (which COULD have been used for something better, like say, given to the poor? ).

No. Put it in education. If we properly educated our kids, abortion would drastically decrease, damn near to the point where it doesn't exsist.

Well, if we're going the education route, let's try to stop teen pregnancy in the first place, then abortion won't even be an issue, it will just be something that no one cares about anymore.

News Credits: 25 · by **Ironhidensh** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:23 pm

Fender Bender wrote:
Ironhidensh wrote:
Fender Bender wrote:
To me, about %95 of people already have their minds made up regarding the issue, so I see no point in them spending these tens of thousands of dollars of donations (which COULD have been used for something better, like say, given to the poor? ).

No. Put it in education. If we properly educated our kids, abortion would drastically decrease, damn near to the point where it doesn't exsist.

Well, if we're going the education route, let's try to stop teen pregnancy in the first place, then abortion won't even be an issue, it will just be something that no one cares about anymore.

Thats what I meant.

by **Autobotcity** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:05 am

Glyph wrote:
Autobotcity wrote:If you're involved in political activities, regardless of the topic, that's something different than being an institution or something that aids the poor.

Out of curiosity, how would that apply to, for example, a charity which aids the poor and wants to lobby about a cause of poverty?

Well the point is, should you a government fund a lobby group? Not so much the charity, but the lobby group? Meaning the government would be actively involved in supporting a lobby group, regardless of their purpose or goal, that would mean they'd help that particular lobbyists item. :???:

For example, if a Scientology Charity Fund would lobby for their way of helping the poor and they'd get government funds for that, that'd be basically the government helping to spread Scientology influence among the politicians, by financial support to both the charity and lobbyists.

I'm not at all in favour of that and I don't think other lobbyist groups regardless of background should be treated similarly by any government. Then I'm also talking about WWF and Greenpeace. I don't mind government support to their wildlife protection programs, but the political lobbying groups aren't IMO to be supported through a government.