|
When you lose the ACLU...; Is lobbying policy unconstituional?
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 28 2009, 05:13 AM (80 Views)
|
|
George K
|
Mar 28 2009, 05:13 AM
Post #1
|
- Posts:
- 88,965
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #249
- Joined:
- August 4, 2005
|
Obama order worries free speech groups
- Quote:
-
Free speech advocates from across the political spectrum are accusing President BarackObama of impinging on First Amendment rights and are gearing up to take their case public.
At issue is an unprecedented directive that Obama— who has long railed against lobbyists as the personification of a corrupt Washington culture — issued last week barring officials charged with doling out stimulus funds from talking to registered lobbyists about specific projects or applicants for stimulus cash.
Under the directive, which began going into effect this week, agency officials are required to begin meetings about stimulus funding for projects by asking whether any party to the conversation is a lobbyist.
“If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in-person contact, but may submit a communication in writing,” reads Obama’s memo, which requires the agencies to post lobbyists’ written communications online.
The rule is intended to prevent stimulus funds form being “distributed on the basis of factors other than the merits of proposed projects or in response to improper influence or pressure,” according to the memo.
While applauding that goal, Michael Macleod-Ball, chief legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Unionand himself a lobbyist, questions the means, saying, “The question is whether this restriction, as it’s drafted, is the best way to achieve that end with the narrowest amount of limitation on an individual’s rights possible.
“From our perspective, the pretty clear answer is ‘no, it’s not.’”
Next week, the left-leaning ACLU will join with the non-profit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the trade group the American League of Lobbyists in sending a letter to the White House protesting the policy, said League President Dave Wenhold.
But Elizabeth Alexander, press secretary for the Vice President, who has been tasked with overseeing the stimulus, pointed out that lobbyists can still talk to administration officials about the stimulus policies, just not specific projects.
“The goal is full transparency. That’s entirely consistent with the 1st Amendment,” she said in a statement to POLITICO. “Lobbyists can communicate about specific projects in writing and about policy issues orally. That fully respects freedom of speech—while at the same time ending closed-door lobbyist deal-making in favor of sunlight,” she said.
Hardly, said Wenhold, who said lobbyists have already told him they were barred from meetings in which only one out of the six topics on the agenda had to do with specific projects.
“This is a slippery slope,” he said, asserting the practical effect is to bar lobbyists from most—if not all—discussions about the stimulus.
|
A guide to GKSR: Click
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.
I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18
|
| |
|
QuirtEvans
|
Mar 28 2009, 06:13 AM
Post #2
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
- Posts:
- 31,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
- George K
- Mar 28 2009, 05:13 AM
Obama order worries free speech groups- Quote:
-
Free speech advocates from across the political spectrum are accusing President BarackObama of impinging on First Amendment rights and are gearing up to take their case public.
At issue is an unprecedented directive that Obama— who has long railed against lobbyists as the personification of a corrupt Washington culture — issued last week barring officials charged with doling out stimulus funds from talking to registered lobbyists about specific projects or applicants for stimulus cash.
Under the directive, which began going into effect this week, agency officials are required to begin meetings about stimulus funding for projects by asking whether any party to the conversation is a lobbyist.
“If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in-person contact, but may submit a communication in writing,” reads Obama’s memo, which requires the agencies to post lobbyists’ written communications online.
The rule is intended to prevent stimulus funds form being “distributed on the basis of factors other than the merits of proposed projects or in response to improper influence or pressure,” according to the memo.
While applauding that goal, Michael Macleod-Ball, chief legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Unionand himself a lobbyist, questions the means, saying, “The question is whether this restriction, as it’s drafted, is the best way to achieve that end with the narrowest amount of limitation on an individual’s rights possible.
“From our perspective, the pretty clear answer is ‘no, it’s not.’”
Next week, the left-leaning ACLU will join with the non-profit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the trade group the American League of Lobbyists in sending a letter to the White House protesting the policy, said League President Dave Wenhold.
But Elizabeth Alexander, press secretary for the Vice President, who has been tasked with overseeing the stimulus, pointed out that lobbyists can still talk to administration officials about the stimulus policies, just not specific projects.
“The goal is full transparency. That’s entirely consistent with the 1st Amendment,” she said in a statement to POLITICO. “Lobbyists can communicate about specific projects in writing and about policy issues orally. That fully respects freedom of speech—while at the same time ending closed-door lobbyist deal-making in favor of sunlight,” she said.
Hardly, said Wenhold, who said lobbyists have already told him they were barred from meetings in which only one out of the six topics on the agenda had to do with specific projects.
“This is a slippery slope,” he said, asserting the practical effect is to bar lobbyists from most—if not all—discussions about the stimulus.
It's not a bar on lobbyists talking, it's just a time/place/manner restriction. Those are perfectly valid.
|
|
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
|
| |
|
Mikhailoh
|
Mar 28 2009, 08:54 AM
Post #3
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
- Posts:
- 92,804
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- April 26, 2005
|
I don't know. If the ACLU be against it, who cannot stand for it?
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
|
| |