Attacking your 2nd amendment rights by limiting the 1st

[Freedom4All]

Phone: (800) 392-8683 Fax: (703) 267-3918
http://www.NRAILA.org

Registering Your Voice?
Stop Congress From Silencing You!
Call Your U. S. Senator Today!

This week - perhaps even tomorrow - the U.S. Senate is taking up legislation that could stifle gun owners' voices in the legislative process.

To ensure gun owners remain able to speak out in support of our Second Amendment rights, during debate this week on S.A. 3, the "Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act", Senators Robert Bennett (R-Utah) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will offer an amendment to strike Sec. 220-the section that would force countless groups of ordinary citizens to register with the federal government as "lobbyists," with all the attendant restrictions, costs, and penalties.

The First Amendment protects an unqualified "right of the people . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." One of NRA's greatest strength is our members' ability to fully use the First Amendment to protect the Second Amendment. But Sec. 220 would, for the first time in American history, regulate "the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials." Among its everyday adverse effects would be the following:

** Organizations answering mail, e-mail, or telephone calls from people who may or may not be members would have to either verify each person's status as a paying "member" as defined in Section 220, or refrain from urging those people to call Congress about legislative issues. Of course, every day, NRA engages in these types of activities with members and non-members alike.

** Organizations would have to screen e-mail subscriptions to exclude subscribers who are not paying members or else report all e-mail alerts as "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." This would have a severe impact on the Friday NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert¾and on Special Alerts like this one.

Sec. 220 would also do a great disservice by increasing the power of the anti-gun media to the detriment of the people. For example, a privately-owned newspaper could run editorials every day advocating drastic restrictions on Second Amendment liberties-without being subject to any reporting requirements. However, if a staff member of a pro-gun organization, such as NRA, writes a letter to the editor of that newspaper that expresses an opposing view and urges readers to call their senators, that letter would be a "paid effort to stimulate grassroots lobbying." The organization would have to report the cost of the staffer's salary for writing and submitting the letter. This requirement would apply even if the newspaper never publishes the letter, since it is still a "paid attempt . to influence the general public." (Emphasis added)

Similarly, if the grassroots organization pays an advertising agency to create and place a newspaper ad in the same newspaper, the advertising agency would have to register as a "grassroots lobbying firm" within 45 days of being retained and report costs of the communication-even if the ad never runs! The registration requirement would signal the group's plans to opponents, and constitute a prior restraint on free speech, contrary to principles of the First Amendment.

Violations of any of these complex, technical provisions could be punishable by massive civil penalties and felony prison terms under the substitute bill that the Senate will consider. Ultimately, Sec. 220 would force so many organizations to report so many activities that the information would become useless. It would simply be impossible for interested observers to sort the wheat from the chaff.

The First Amendment protects the "right of the people" - not the "right of people who can afford teams of lawyers, accountants, and disclosure specialists." Because the ability of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public is so central to the First Amendment and our ability to protect the Second Amendment, we urge you to contact your U.S. Senators immediately and urge them to support the Bennett-McConnell Amendment (#20) to strike Section 220 in the "Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act." You can reach your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121. You may also e-mail your Senators by clicking here: http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/.

Once you have contacted your two U.S. Senators, please urge your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners to do the same!

[nitrogen]

*EDIT* Reading and understanding are two different things, see my note below. Open mouth, insert foot.

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.

SEC. 220. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING.

(a) Definitions- Section 3 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'; and

(2) by adding at the end of the following:

`(17) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same.

`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.

`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.

`(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.

`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--

`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and

`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.

(b) Registration- Section 4(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)) is amended--

(1) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3)(A), by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii), the term `lobbying activities' shall not include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'.

(c) Separate Itemization of Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying- Section 5(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (3), by--

(A) inserting after `total amount of all income' the following: `(including a separate good faith estimate of the total amount of income relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and

(B) inserting `or a grassroots lobbying firm' after `lobbying firm';

(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting after `total expenses' the following: `(including a good faith estimate of the total amount of expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that total amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not apply with respect to reports relating to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying activities.'.

(d) Good Faith Estimates and De Minimis Rules for Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5(c) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(c)) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Estimates of Income or Expenses- For purposes of this section, the following shall apply:

`(1) Estimates of income or expenses shall be made as follows:

`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $10,0000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.

`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $10,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $10,000 for the reporting period.

`(2) Estimates of income or expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying shall be made as follows:

`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $25,000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.

`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $25,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $25,000 for the reporting period.'.

(2) TAX REPORTING- Section 15 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1610) is amended--

(A) in subsection (a)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'; and

(B) in subsection (b)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'.

[longtooth]

Charles,
What say ye. Speak simply to a dumb country boy who and

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[stevie_d_64]

I've heard someone say that the Second Amendment is the "reset" button for the Consitution...

One of these days that documant is so going to get bogged down with the yoke of political correctness and nanny-state regulations that it may need to be re-booted...

If some don't think its already heading in that direction, I got some pristine, primordial land over in Louisiana I wanna sell ya...

[Charles L. Cotton]

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]

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.

Yikes. Realising that, yes, agreed, it needs to GO.
I retract my previous statement about not being impressed.

[longtooth]

Thank you Charles.

[Commander]

This is scary stuff.

[lrb111]

It would also shut down a lot of union political activity. At least in theory.
Bearing that in mind, I feel it has little chance of moving.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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

[RPBrown]

At least it was removed-THIS TIME. Although I feel someone will try to sneek it in on another bill at the last minute. This is not over yet if the likes of Pelosi and crew have their way.

[Commander]

The vote tally pretty much says it all. There isn't a single "R" after any name in the Nay votes. More proof the Democrats aren't interested in free speech. If you don't agree with them, they want to shut you out.

There is a move in the Democrat party to re-instate the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting. On TV the other night, one of the supporters tried to defend the bill. It came down to the fact that "someone" in government would decide what is "fair" as far as political opinions and if "they" deemed a particular show was not presenting a "balanced" view, would require that show to include an opposing view. This particular congressman offered his opinion that the major networks, CBS, NBC, etc were offering balanced views, while he would say not specifically who he thought was not, it was obvious that he has Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. in his sights.

George Orwell. where are you?

[TraCoun]

It would also shut down a lot of union political activity. At least in theory.
Bearing that in mind, I feel it has little chance of moving.

The liberal democrats and the unions have been cooperating for a long time, and I am sure that, somehow, something would have been done to allow the unions to get around this. I'll bet the union bosses did not say anything to their rank and file about the possible effects of this. I used to be in a rather large union, and have had a few tastes of just how 'democratic' some of those folks can be.

JMHO

TraCoun

[jbirds1210]

This particular congressman offered his opinion that the major networks, CBS, NBC, etc were offering balanced views, while he would say not specifically who he thought was not, it was obvious that he has Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. in his sights.

I watched this debated with Hannity and Tennessee congressman a couple of nights ago on Fox. At the end of the interview Hannity bowed his head and thanked Mr. Congressman for allowing him to speak out. Sean Hannity owes me a coke! It was hilarious.