Talking Points: Section 220 of S.1, The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007

1. Tell your senator to support the Bennett Amendment, which will strip Section 220 from S.1.

2. Section 220 puts the act of communicating with voters about a bill on the same level as a registered lobbyist (like Jack Abramoff) taking a congressman to dinner or on a junket.

3. This legislation is nothing less than an attempt by Members of Congress to insulate themselves from the people who elected them.

4. It appears the authors of Section 220 have it backwards – the people are not responsible to Congress. Rather, Congress is responsible to the people.

5. While S.1 is touted as an “ethics reform” bill, Section 220 has nothing to do with ethics; rather it’s an attempt to limit the impact of the average American who wants information and direction on public policy issues. It’s not “ethical” to hinder citizens from participating in their government.

6. Section 220 mandates detailed grassroots lobbying reports to Congress (specifically, the secretary of the Senate and clerk of the House) four times per year. Failure to comply can result in a fine of up to $100,000.

7. Section 220 greatly increases the administrative and compliance costs of grassroots lobbying to non-profit groups and ministries.

8. This would include tracking and reporting every discussion with an elected official, each article written on legislation, and every stamp and piece of paper attached to the mere mention of a policy issue. Miles of red tape do not equal “ethics.”

9. Section 220 will likely reduce the number of issues and bills that non-profit groups are able to address; some grassroots organizations may be forced to shut down all together due to the burdensome mandates. This legislation crosses the line to impeding freedom of speech.

10. The timing of the required reports may give advantage to the ideological opponents of affected groups. In some cases, the quarterly report filing will be required in advance of a scheduled media campaign and therefore reveal our strategy to the opposition.

11. Section 220 also extends to outside vendors such as mail companies and advertising agencies hired by non-profit organizations for grassroots lobbying. Additional costs incurred by vendors will be passed back to the non-profit hiring them — again adding to our burden from this misguided legislation.

12. Section 220 reads as if it were written for pro-family, conservative organizations and ministries. It penalizes groups like ours while exempting labor unions, trade organizations, corporations and even foreign entities.
    

Produce by the Minnesota Family Council
Janurary 12, 2007