NationStates Jolt Archive

As I love to send nasty emails back to the group, I haven't rid myself of the emails from the AFA (american family association). Well, i got one and was reading it looking for something to throw back at them, but well if what they say is true, then i don't like it one bit. Here is what it says:

U.S. House set to vote on “Grassroots Gag Order”

Contact your representative today to oppose H.R. 984

Dear Thomas,


Without a doubt, this could be the most important letter I have written you. I wrote to you in January about legislation in the U.S. Senate that could have silenced grassroots communication. Thankfully, the legislation was defeated after you and other concerned citizens let your voices be heard. Now, the U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on the same issue.

The U.S. House is set to vote on H.R. 984, which would effectively keep AFA and every other pro-family organization in America from providing you information on bills in Congress. Under H.R. 984, we would only be able to provide you information on a bill at a high cost and at great danger of being penalized by Congress.

To put it bluntly, members of Congress are tired of getting your e-mails and phone calls, and H.R. 984 is designed to keep information from you that might inspire you to call or write your representative.

Click Here to read AFA's review of H.R. 984.

The new Democratic Senate thinks that if it can keep you from getting information - which is what H.R. 984 would do - then its members will not be getting e-mails and phone calls from you.

Representatives favoring this bill are simply tired of hearing from you. That is the bottom line. They don’t want to hear from you. They don’t want you to be informed. They want to silence you. How? By simply keeping you from receiving information that AFA provides.

I know that language is strong, but H.R. 984 will do exactly what I’ve said.

Take Action
Send an e-mail to your representative now!
Call your representative at 202-224-3121. Urge your representative to vote against H.R. 984. Tell him or her that you support the portions of this bill that call for more transparency and accountability from Congress. Tell him or her that you reject provisions which unnecessarily require burdensome regulations upon communications by individual constituents who are freely and voluntarily expressing their views on important issues to members of Congress and the Executive Branch.
Please forward this to your friends and family. It is vitally important that they know what members of the House are trying to do.
Print this information, and share it with members in your Sunday School class and church and urge them to send an e-mail and call.


Email Your Representative in Opposition to H.R. 984


If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.

Sincerely,



Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association



Please tell me that these religionists are just being silly again.

But....but....my grass needs it's roots.:(


:gundge:

But....but....my grass needs it's roots.:(

I have no idea wtf those wackos are talking about.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.+984:

I'd be fucking tired of listening to my aides complain about having to listen to uninformed and belligerent idiots emailing them all the time about every bill they only read about on some grass roots site with an agenda that makes no sense too.

Here's what I've found out about the bill:

"The purpose of this bill is to reform operations of the executive branch by requiring that executive branch officials record any significant contacts during each quarter between themselves and any private party relating to an official government action. “Significant contact” is defined as oral or written communication (including electronic communication) that is made by a private party who is seeking to influence official action by any officer or employee of the execute branch of the United States. The only exception would be made for lobbying contacts as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. A “private party” is defined as any person or entity, but does not include a federal, state, or local government official or a person representing such an official."

Here's what I find interesting:

A quick search revealed a whole lot of organizations hollering about how this bill will "place more restrictions on ordinary citizens who attempt to contact officials in the executive branch" and such like that.

However, every single one of the organizations I've found so far has been a "traditional family values" type organization. I.e. anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-women's rights, etc.

Odd.

Further, I can't figure out why they are claiming that this bill will restrict ordinary citizens from contacting officials in the executive branch. From what I've read so far, it appears that this bill simply requires that contacts be RECORDED by the officials. I can totally understand why anti-choice organizations and the politicians they buy might not want such information to be on the record

But perhaps I'm missing something.

Here's what I've found out about the bill:

"The purpose of this bill is to reform operations of the executive branch by requiring that executive branch officials record any significant contacts during each quarter between themselves and any private party relating to an official government action. “Significant contact” is defined as oral or written communication (including electronic communication) that is made by a private party who is seeking to influence official action by any officer or employee of the execute branch of the United States. The only exception would be made for lobbying contacts as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. A “private party” is defined as any person or entity, but does not include a federal, state, or local government official or a person representing such an official."

Here's what I find interesting:

A quick search revealed a whole lot of organizations hollering about how this bill will "place more restrictions on ordinary citizens who attempt to contact officials in the executive branch" and such like that.

However, every single one of the organizations I've found so far has been a "traditional family values" type organization. I.e. anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-women's rights, etc.

Odd.

Further, I can't figure out why they are claiming that this bill will restrict ordinary citizens from contacting officials in the executive branch. From what I've read so far, it appears that this bill simply requires that contacts be RECORDED by the officials. I can totally understand why anti-choice organizations and the politicians they buy might not want such information to be on the record

But perhaps I'm missing something.

Aha! I knew something was up. Geez. Next time I'll google before posting ;)

I think what your missing Bottle, and what these groups don't want to happen is (from what I can decifer) it requires public disclosure of contacts between executive branch officials and lobbying groups (which these 'family values' groups are).

Basically they don't want made public just how much they are trying to influence executive policy.

I have no idea wtf those wackos are talking about.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.+984:

I'd be fucking tired of listening to my aides complain about having to listen to uninformed and belligerent idiots emailing them all the time about every bill they only read about on some grass roots site with an agenda that makes no sense too.

Yeah, i could understand actually blocking the family groups from contacting them. Maybe this country would run better? :p

I think what your missing Bottle, and what these groups don't want to happen is (from what I can decifer) it requires public disclosure of contacts between executive branch officials and lobbying groups (which these 'family values' groups are).

Basically they don't want made public just how much they are trying to influence executive policy.
Makes sense to me.

Please tell me that these religionists are just being silly again.
I've had a read over the bill, and can see exactly why they're getting worried. The second this thing is passed, all future dialogue between religious/"family" groups and US officials will be made publicly available (not immediately, but within a period of a few months). Effectively, lobby groups either have their correspondence come out of the shadows or the representatives who try to secretly lobby their causes themselves and cover up for them get thrown out of office once the government finds out what's going on. This is a lose-lose scenario, as they can no longer drive controversial measures without everyone else seeing exactly what they're up to unless they're willing to jeopardise those figures in office who would best be willing to support their causes.

As dreadful a cynic as I am, the clamour of the religious nuts makes sense in the light of the underhanded manipulation of lawmakers they engage in.

The only thing I found in Google News just now that didn't seem like a direct take-off of your email was this:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/070416
(Scroll down past the Imus part, and past the "soft pedaling" stuff, to where it says "Now the threat is getting up close and personal")

I've never seen that site before I did that search, but at-a-glance it seems to be a religious-far-right one, judging by the ads they're allowing to run. It may actually just be rewording a press release from the same place that sent you the email--some writers are very good at that.

So take it with however many grains of salt you think it deserves!

Personally I find the apparent lack of other groups caring about this to be a red flag. Groups *everywhere* on the political spectrum like to get people to write their congresspeople (and occasionally the White House). Yet I see no complaints from environmentalists and the like... That's pretty strange, IMO...

In my experience, when dealing with the AFA one is best off assuming that whatever they tell you is the precise opposite of what is actually the case.

This example holds true to my formula. The AFA says, "H.R. 984 is designed to keep information from you that might inspire you to call or write your representative." The reality is that this bill would INCREASE the amount of information available to you, probably increasing your likelihood of writing to your Rep and asking, "Dude, why the fuck are you spending so much time with radical religious nutters?"

And that's exactly what they AFA is worried about.

I must now make a note to always check the thread in another window and read the new posts that came in while I was typing, before I post mine...

Fergi America;12559542']The only thing I found in Google News just now that didn't seem like a direct take-off of your email was this:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/070416
(Scroll down past the Imus part, and past the "soft pedaling" stuff, to where it says "Now the threat is getting up close and personal")

I've never seen that site before I did that search, but at-a-glance it seems to be a religious-far-right one, judging by the ads they're allowing to run. It may actually just be rewording a press release from the same place that sent you the email--some writers are very good at that.

So take it with however many grains of salt you think it deserves!

Personally I find the apparent lack of other groups caring about this to be a red flag. Groups *everywhere* on the political spectrum like to get people to write their congresspeople (and occasionally the White House). Yet I see no complaints from environmentalists and the like... That's pretty strange, IMO...

That site scares me. THere was a link to a book about annexing mexico and making them assimilate.

That site scares me. THere was a link to a book about annexing mexico and making them assimilate.
We are the Borg. You shall be assimilated. Amen.

Another effect of the bill that I'm sure they don't want to happen is that it will severely restrict employment of executive branch officials by these same lobbying groups after they leave public service.

No more influencing decision makers with promises of a cushy, lucrative job after they leave office.

Personally I find the apparent lack of other groups caring about this to be a red flag. Groups *everywhere* on the political spectrum like to get people to write their congresspeople (and occasionally the White House). Yet I see no complaints from environmentalists and the like... That's pretty strange, IMO...
Because no one but knee-jerk religious oppression groups have a vested interested in keeping their contacts with the government secret. I guess this shows who those people are lobbying. While the other groups lobby Congress, which this doesn't cover, those groups go straight to the high-ups in the executive branch.

Another effect of the bill that I'm sure they don't want to happen is that it will severely restrict employment of executive branch officials by these same lobbying groups after they leave public service.

No more influencing decision makers with promises of a cushy, lucrative job after they leave office.
That was the original part of the bill apparently. Waxman added all the "fuck with the religious wackos" stuff afterwards.

Grassroots lobbying my ass. Every major "grassroots" lobbying organization is opposing this. If you are a fucking organization, you arn't grassroots any more, you are just a lobbyist group.

So Zilly, when are you email them back to inform them how painfully wrong they are?

Don't forget to include a link to this thread!

I suppose I'll write them after class. I'll leave a copy of it on this thread :p

So Zilly, when are you email them back to inform them how painfully wrong they are?

Don't forget to include a link to this thread!
And CC it to everyone found here http://www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/MultiGroupLetterToProtectGRL.pdf

I can see why the ACLU and FSC oppose it, but the rest just don't want people to know how much they are really affecting the government.

So Zilly, when are you email them back to inform them how painfully wrong they are?

Don't forget to include a link to this thread!

This reminds me, though, to once again cheer for the Democratic majority in Congress!

Such a pity that the "party of fiscal conservatives" and "values" couldn't manage to pass such measures ensuring honesty and openness regarding our government officials and their sponsors. I'm sure they tried very hard, though. :rolleyes:

So they're passing an Accountability legislation...?

That site scares me. THere was a link to a book about annexing mexico and making them assimilate.
Not sure whether to go :eek: or LOL at the absurdity of that, or maybe both!

I'll have to check it out some more later. Right now, I need sleep...been up all night, as usual.

So they're passing an Accountability legislation...?

Bingo. Better stop that shit right quick..

So they're passing an Accountability legislation...?
Only evil secular lesbian abortion doctor liberal Islamunist traitors would support the heinous march of Accountability!

Further down in the proposed legislation is also the provision against pseudo-classifications and restrictions on funding for propaganda.

I imagine these things frighten any organization which depends on federal funds given to them via some non-existant NGO. The reason the big lobby groups aren't shouting about this is that they already have disclosure.

So now, when you read some watch-dog site listing which congressman used your tax dollars to contribute to the NRA or the ACLU, you will also be treated to a list of which ones contributed your tax dollars to moveon.org, snopes.com, whitepower.com or nationstates.net via some well concealed trail of fake organizations and personal contacts.
{Please note the org's above were pulled out of my ass. Which explains the smell and the randomness of them. Please do not feel offended if I did or did not use your favorite org's name}

Despite the fact that people are generally lazy and probably won't bother keeping up with the information offered, and despite the fact that I generally loathe an act that makes the gov't bigger, more expensive and more bureucratic, I like this act. I especially like the way they didn't try to sneak in funding for some compltely unrelated pet project at the end of it.

Bingo. Better stop that shit right quick..

"Abramoff? Abramoff? No-o, I don't recall meeting with anyone by that name."

"Abramoff? Abramoff? No-o, I don't recall meeting with anyone by that name."
"Emails? What emails?"

I can totally understand why anti-choice organizations and the politicians they buy might not want such information to be on the record

But perhaps I'm missing something.

Perhaps the assumption (first) that politicians are bought only by anti-choicers? Or that most are "bought" in the first place?

Perhaps the assumption (first) that politicians are bought only by anti-choicers?

Where is that assumption in my post?


Or that most are "bought" in the first place?
Now you're just being naive. :D

Where is that assumption in my post?


Now you're just being naive. :D

You know, it's amazing how things change when you actually read and don't just skim in blind passion...:)

In my experience, when dealing with the AFA one is best off assuming that whatever they tell you is the precise opposite of what is actually the case.

This example holds true to my formula. The AFA says, "H.R. 984 is designed to keep information from you that might inspire you to call or write your representative." The reality is that this bill would INCREASE the amount of information available to you, probably increasing your likelihood of writing to your Rep and asking, "Dude, why the fuck are you spending so much time with radical religious nutters?"

And that's exactly what they AFA is worried about.

Wait, representative? I don't believe I've heard that used for the Executive branch...interesting