TexasCHLforum.com

Venus Pax wrote:Charles,
If I read your link correctly, both Cornyn and Hutchison voted for Section 220. Am I reading it correctly that they voted to stifle free speech of union and lobby group members?
If I'm reading this correctly, I think a letter of admonishment is in order.
I could be reading this entirely wrong. Please correct me if I am. I don't want to chastise two senators trying to help us!

No, Cornyn and Hutchison voted for the Bennett-McConnell Amendment that removed Section 220. I don't think any Republicans voted to keep Section 220.

Chas.

Well, as noted in another thread, the "Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act" passed without Section 220. The Bennett-McConnell Amendment removing §220 passed on a vote of 55 to 43. It's frightening that 43 United States Senators would vote to infringe upon the First Amendment in such an egregious manner, solely to allow them to operate under far less scrutiny. The sole goal of §220 was to cut off the flow of information to the people.

Take a look at how they voted. Many are the usual suspects we'd expect to see, some are not. It's clear the Second Amendment is not the only element of the Bill of Rights many in Washington are more than willing to sacrifice. This is absolutely disgusting.

Here's the link: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00017

Here is a follow up on just a small part of Section 220:

`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--

`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;

`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;

`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;

`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or

`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.

These provisions would make every member of the NRA subject to the provisions of Section 220.

Chas.

nitrogen wrote:Read section 220. It's one thing believing what the NRA says it means, it's another thing to actually read it.

First, it doesn't limit grassroots lobbying.
This would limit orgs like the NRA, as well as HCI/Bradycampaign just as equally. I'm not impressed.

I'm not sure I'm interpreting you correctly, but I believe you do not feel Section 220 is a threat and that it doesn't effect grassroots lobbying. If I'm correct, I'd like to offer this view.

Section 220 will be devastating to grassroots "lobbying." While the proposed definition excludes the activity of "grassroots lobbying," i.e. you and I contacting our elected representatives, it does apply to the NRA, TSRA, AFA and countless other organizations. It is pure deception for the Senate sponsors to claim they aren't infringing upon our ability to "lobby" our Senators and Representatives. How are we to learn of the issues if we cannot rely upon organizations like the NRA that have the ability to monitor the activity in Washington? In essence, the Senate sponsors are telling us "you can contact your elected officials all you want, but we're going to cut off the flow of information to you so you'll have nothing to contact us about."

Any law that tends to stem the flow of information concerning proposed legislation to the public is a step in the wrong direction.

Chas.