Pelosi Trying to Limit Grassroots Activism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blaster

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
69
Location
Illinois
Link to info

The biggest strength of Ohioans For Concealed Carry has always been the efforts of our grassroots members. The ability to mobilize that base to contact their legislators has been crucial for gun rights reform in Ohio. Similar actions have been widely credited with the waves of reform which have swept the country in recent years.

Now, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is reportedly making overtures to curb that sort of grassroots activism by establishing "lobbying reform" to impose strict new regulations on such displays of free speech.

According to some reports:

The legislation would make changes to the legal definition of "grassroots lobbying" and require any organization that encourages 500 or more members of the general public to contact their elected representatives to file a report with detailed information about their organization to the government on a quarterly basis.


The new legislation is expected to be modeled on the failed 2006 bill H.R. 4682. If so, then in addition to that requirement, grassroots organizations would also be required to file quarterly reports on all informational and educational materials produced for each issue. Other regulations expected to be included the requirement to be registered with congress and impose strict and heavy penalties for failure to comply.

Washington Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott put it best when he said, "In other words, for the first time in American history, potentially millions of concerned citizens involved in grassroots lobbying and representing viewpoints from across the entire political spectrum would have to register with Congress in order to exercise their First Amendment rights."

This is nothing less than a further attack by elitist Liberals who are determined to squash any public outcry against policies they set forth. Grassroots activism is one of the purest forms of political activism, with broad support coming directly from the people. Any attempt to throttle the voice of the American people into silence, whether through a direct act or the intrusion of oppressive regulation, is a direct affront to the very freedoms upon which this country was built and must not be tolerated.

Will such an attack on Free Speech die in infancy, or will it be merely the first encroachment in an effort to break free of the Will of the People and ensure unpopular policies are imposed upon the sheeple without opposition?

While the Second Amendment has always been the focus of the efforts of OFCC, almost nothing we do would be possible without the First. We will be watching these developments closely.
 
Last edited:
First of all, yes it is true. That is precisely what Pelosi wants. It is also the exact same intent of McCain/Feingold. Limit the ability of people outside of government to make their voices heard. The interesting part of this is that it cuts both ways. Obviously grassroots gun owners or hunters or shooting range groups are going to find it impossible, financially and time-wise, to register. But is also limits the ability of Left Liberal groups as well.

I think this is most accurately described as "Permanent Protection for Incumbents". That is what these power-mad lunatics want most: for us to shut up and let them reign for ever.
 
But is also limits the ability of Left Liberal groups as well

Well, maybe. Ever hear of selective enforcement? For all their blathering about it, equal application of the law isn't something the leftys are real concerned with.
 
Sure, but it will limit those liberal far left groups who are pumped up with millions of dollars by a select few liberals as propoganda fronts? Those little fronts will have their filings and paperwork paid for while the real grassroots organizations will be shut out. Then, who will have the voice to speak for the "grassroots"? It is frustrating to read about what is being put under regulation due to the MF laws... :fire:
 
I don't know why Republicans would have a problem with this law.

It seems to me that it compliments Campaign Finance Reform well, which was proposed by a Republican Senator, legislated by a Republican controlled Congress, signed by a Republican President, and then upheld by a Republican appointed Supreme Court.

Maybe Pelosi is thinking about switching parties?
 
Pelosi didn't say, "We're ready to serve the American people." She said, "We're ready to govern!"

She meant it.
 
Feingold is/was a Democrat, though I don't think that left-leaning civil libertarians are any happier than right-leaning civil libertarians are with McCain. Maybe he's a DINO?

The ACLU and the NRA are in total agreement about McCain-Feingold, AFAIK.
 
Maybe she's getting a little uptight because of this ruling.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061221/ap_on_el_ge/campaign_finance_lawsuit

WASHINGTON - A federal court on Thursday loosened restrictions on corporations, unions and other special interest groups that run political advertising in peak election season.

The 2-1 ruling said groups may mention candidates by name in commercials as long as they are trying to influence public policy, rather than sway an election.
I don't know why she would be so worried, those in
D.C hardly ever listen to people who put em there..
 
So, a moderator at a large bulletin board / chat room (The High Road?) puts up a post regarding new legislation he or she has a strong stance on. The readership of this board exceeds 20,000 folks, and it sparks a letter writing campaign from 5000 of them.

Is that board now required by this proposed legislation to file all sorts of cumbersome paperwork? Or are the readers of that board not members of the "general public" since they deliberately came to said web service rather than being presented with advertising or overt presentation?
 
shermacman said:
But is also limits the ability of Left Liberal groups as well.

Don't count on it. Example: Just about any time a politician speaks in an evangelical church, or an evangelical pastor makes a comment from the pulpit regarding politics, the person and church are "examined" and threatened with removal of their tax free status. But put a Democrat in liberal church and they can say what they want to their heart's content with no repercussions. Just like the "Fairness Doctrine", this is designed to limit the voice of conservative people in government.
 
azredhawk44 raises the right question.
The answer is "it depends". On who is in power.
And no, I do not think this will fall equally on both Left and Right sides. My concern is the broader issue of government intrusion. This Pelosi bill is just another step after McCain/Feingold. These people want power, they want us to shut up and they will step on us any way they can.
 
millions of concerned citizens involved in grassroots lobbying and representing viewpoints from across the entire political spectrum would have to register with Congress in order to exercise their First Amendment rights."

I wonder what would be the actual cost to me, as an INDIVIDUAL to register and submit quartly reports on my political activities. If there was no fee required to register, and the quarterly reports did not require documentation other than my own notes, I could abide with that. NOW, suppose 10 millions of us were to register, and submit reports quarterly: "I spoke to 4 individuals during the last quarter, endorsing the election of Mr. X YZ to Congress."

I don't suppose a report to .gov could be so simple, though. So, will there be special forms to be filled out each time I speak to another about a particular candidate's election? How happy would .gov's beaureacrats be to have to scan 40 or 50 million forms each quarter? :evil: Hmmmmm

Pops
 
>How happy would .gov's beaureacrats be to have to
> scan 40 or 50 million forms each quarter? Hmmmmm
>Pops

No problem! They'd just hire thousands of new government drones, to be paid with tax dollars to handle all the paper, and make sure everything is filled out according to ritual. That's the type of thing government is best at!
Mart
 
Well there is something we can do. I found this the other day and if we rally and send a message to our elected officials we may have a voice that will be heard.

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/home/

Go to this site and click on the GOA alert. There is a message that will be sent to your rep.



Snappy
 
Iamazza,

Are you so sure of that? I'm not!!! When McCain/Fiengold was passed, many thought there was no way in hell such an obvious, thinly veiled scheme to muzzle First Amendment Rights would see the light of day. Much to our utter astonishment and bitter dismay, it was upheld by SCOTUS and still lives on today. Now, we have this Communist wearing Prada pushing for the next step. How many pushes, how many steps are too many? When the First is silenced, how long do you suppose it will take to gut or just flat out destroy the others? And with NO voice to raise the alarm, we will know NOTHING until it's too late. Our education will come with a knock, or boot to the door at midnight. Does this sound drastic? Does sound like America? I fought for this country in many places most will never know and some never heard of (and it wasn't 'Nam, I'm not that "experienced" with life). Anyway, for what? This kind of sh.t? We're fighting to bring Democracy to people, who don't even want it, while we are slowly destroying our own system from within at home. Does this sound far fetched? Statesmen, farmers, ranchers alike from merely a hundred years ago would roll over in their graves if they saw where this country is heading. At what point does one, or ones countrymen, say ENOUGH?????????? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
 
+1 rmmoore

If we don't understand that the American Left plans to silence dissent by any means possible we are whistling past the graveyard. The Dem leadership can't help but overreach. What the reaction is remains to be seen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top