WASHINGTON (ABP) — Some religious conservative groups are joining with their occasional adversaries in the civil-libertarian community to protest part of Democrats' lobbying-reform bill.
Groups as diverse as the National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council, National Association of Manufacturers and American Civil Liberties Union say a provision of the bill, which is being considered by the Senate, would have a chilling effect on First Amendment freedoms.
“Now the liberal leadership in the U.S. Senate seeks to silence groups like the Family Research Council from informing you on the issues,” wrote Tony Perkins, the group's president, in an e-mail to supporters. He continued: “Included…is a provision that seeks to establish, for the first time, federal regulation of grassroots activity that is intended to encourage members of the public to communicate with members of Congress about pending legislative matters — so-called 'grassroots lobbying.' This is a move to stop us from informing you about the issues you find important.”
An ACLU press release decrying the bill said: “The intention of supporters of the bill is to limit the impact of what they call 'big-dollar advertising.' However, it would chill the constitutionally protected activity of many advocacy organizations.”
The provision in question would require groups that engage in grassroots lobbying on issues currently before Congress to disclose their expenditures any time they communicate with their constituents about those issues.
The conservative, libertarian and business groups said that could require burdensome disclosure requirements from churches and other non-profit groups.
But proponents of the bill noted that non-profit groups are increasingly being used for large-scale lobbying efforts. For instance, the recent scandal surrounding disgraced former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff included revelations that he channeled millions of dollars in fees from Indian-casino clients through non-profit groups run by former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed. The groups existed, ostensibly, to fight the expansion of gambling. But Indian tribes with rival gambling interests funded them through Abramoff and Reed to stop potential competition.
One Christian ethicist who runs a Texas Baptist group that sometimes engages in grassroots advocacy said Christians shouldn't fear increased transparency about their public-policy efforts. Suzii Paynter, director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas Christian Life Commission, said, “it's all just, in a sense, a continuation of a trend for disclosure in government.”
Paynter conceded that such disclosure may be “inconvenient” for churches and other groups organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code “But sometimes the things that are most ethical are inconvenient. It doesn't change the rules for lobbying about 501(c)(3)s — they just have to disclose it in a different way, which I think is a good thing.”
But, she continued, lawmakers should be vigilant that the measure does not overburden religious groups. “There's always a trade-off in situations like that. I think the question we have to ask, is there an undue burden on a nonprofit and a religious organization? And perhaps that's the right question for the Senate — to look at the spirit of the reform and pay attention to the individual organizations.”
Senate Republicans halted the bill over an unrelated matter Jan. 17. But it may come up again later in the year.
The Senate version of the bill is S. 1. It is known as the “Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007.”
-30-
