Congress doesnt want to hear from us...


PDA






Autolycus
April 21, 2007, 08:12 AM
http://www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/WaxmanDavisArticle.pdf

Its a PDF file so you will need adobe.

But basically from everything I have read and heard this bill is a way to restrict us from knowing what Congress is voting on.

Here is a link to the text of the bill...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.+984:

If you enjoyed reading about "Congress doesnt want to hear from us..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vis--vis
April 21, 2007, 08:17 AM
tagging this for a read when I wake up.

Thin Black Line
April 21, 2007, 08:24 AM
Actually, I'd like to see more of this:

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO STOPPING THE REVOLVING DOOR.

As far as "significant contacts" --the average person writing a letter expressing
his/her opinion will not be considered a "significant contact". If media/oil mogul
Mr X does, it is.

No one on THR or the cadres of talkshow dittoheads whether it be conservative
talk radio or NPR would ever qualify in that regard.

`An officer or employee of the United States Government may not make or authorize an expenditure or obligation of funds for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless authorized by law.'.

;) :D

Master Blaster
April 21, 2007, 08:36 AM
Read the legislation.

Its not what the poster is saying.

Thin Black Line
April 21, 2007, 08:44 AM
MB, what are you saying?

jpk1md
April 21, 2007, 08:51 AM
Its not about Congress....it about Congress trying to keep tabs on the Executive Branch (POTUS).

`SEC. 601. RECORDING AND REPORTING BY CERTAIN EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACTS MADE TO THOSE OFFICIALS.

`(a) In General- Not later than 30 days after the end of a calendar quarter, each covered executive branch official shall make a record of, and file with the Office of Government Ethics a report on, any significant contacts during the quarter between the covered executive branch official and any private party relating to an official government action. If no such contacts occurred, each such official shall make a record of, and file with the Office a report on, this fact, at the same time.

`(b) Contents of Record and Report- Each record made, and each report filed, under subsection (a) shall contain--

`(1) the name of the covered executive branch official;

`(2) the name of each private party who had a significant contact with that official; and

`(3) for each private party so named, a summary of the nature of the contact, including--

`(A) the date of the contact;

`(B) the subject matter of the contact and the specific executive branch action to which the contact relates; and

`(C) if the contact was made on behalf of a client, the name of the client.

`(c) Withholding FOIA-Exempt Information- This section does not require the filing with the Office of Government Ethics of information that is exempt from public disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code (popularly referred to at the `Freedom of Information Act').

Thin Black Line
April 21, 2007, 09:00 AM
Its not about Congress....it about Congress trying to keep tabs on the Executive Branch (POTUS).


And this is good/bad? (Please check one).

jpk1md
April 21, 2007, 09:08 AM
Personally I think it Bad.....that is unless it was a 2 way street and Members of Congress ALSO had to provide the same level of reporting.

Its a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

The current leadership in Congress needs to stop going after Bush and start getting down to business and addressing the Medicare, Immigration, Entitlement, Social Security etc etc etc issues.

Thin Black Line
April 21, 2007, 09:26 AM
The current leadership in Congress needs to stop going after Bush...

Maybe we would all feel differently if it was President Hillary Clinton? Wouldn't
we like to know how often ppl in the Exec Branch were speaking with gun
controllers, known anti-US globalists, and other assorted euro-trash, etc?

I am under no illusion that every letter, fax, and email I send to anyone at any
level can be retained and saved indefinitely. I suppose all my informal "old boy
network" verbal contacts could now be under some scrutiny....wow, I'm already
losing sleep.

Let's say I become president and there's this dreaded gun control bill that could
be coming up for me to sign. Given my long history everyone knows I'm not
going to sign it. In fact, the year before I just issued an Executive Order
allowing the sale of post-86 machine guns to John and Jane Q Public. Now
I can guarantee you I'm still going to have a lot of "contacts" with this or that
anti-gun group, social policy thinktank, etc. I'll listen to them and tell them
"no" and there would be total transparency about it. In fact for entertainment,
I might schedule them at the same time and in the same room as NRA and GOA.
It'll all be listed on that database for Congress. In fact, I might even air it live
on C-SPAN.

So where's the problem?

jpk1md
April 21, 2007, 09:34 AM
The problem as I see it is that it creates yet another layer of bueurocracy. It wastes time and the taxpayer dollars...most important its not for The People but Congress.

Thin Black Line
April 21, 2007, 10:06 AM
The problem as I see it is that it creates yet another layer of bueurocracy.

In many fields this would be called a "case note". In an executive official's
itinerary it would mean writing a "subject" next to the name and date already
there. If the name doesn't list the person org, then you write the org next
to the name.

I'll agree it's extra work, but it's not another layer. I suppose President Thin
might need some Congressmen on the Hill to send some aids over to make
copies of my appointment book.....

Art Eatman
April 21, 2007, 11:30 AM
Following the first link: If "significant contact" means folks like you and me visitng or writing some bureaucrat, the paper's gonna stack so high so fast that nothing will come of it. They'll be out of hard drive space in a heartbeat.

If "sig-con" means registered lobbyists and VIPs, that's already recorded. How else do we know who spent the night at the White House, for instance? And bureaucrats already keep logs of contacts and visits for "less than VIPs", just for self-protection for when they're called to testify in court or before Congress.

I haven't followed the second link, yet, but so far the first link looks like the all-too-common worst-case interpretation that a paranoid can dream up on his way to the box of kitchen foil.

Art

MechAg94
April 21, 2007, 12:02 PM
EIther way, it looks like Congressional democrats are just trying put restrictions and reporting requirements on the executive branch. I might even go back to Bush and Cheney's Energy policy when they were unwilling to discuss who participated. The fact that is doesn't apply to Congress at all should speak volumes.

ShelleyB.
April 21, 2007, 12:38 PM
It is a waste of time and money.

Criminals do not obey laws, no matter their station in life.

Old Fuff
April 21, 2007, 12:49 PM
And of course if this bill becomes law, and a Democrat is elected president in 2008, a Democrat congress would make absolutely sure the law was enforced.

Sure....... :uhoh: :rolleyes:

longeyes
April 21, 2007, 12:50 PM
Sure, they want to hear from you. Make sure the envelope has some loose cash in it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Congress doesnt want to hear from us..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!