Post by RS Davis on Feb 13, 2004 16:47:38 GMT -5
Two Bush administration agencies are considering new rules that the ACLU says amount to
nothing less than "one of the most fundamental attacks on the freedom of speech and freedom
of association of American citizens ever contemplated by a governmental agency."
The proposed rules could prevent non-profit organizations from giving their members,
supporters and readers vital information about the political actions of federal officials who
are up for re-election.
The proposals are vague, but they suggest that even sending email stories criticizing the
actions of such officials -- like the story in this issue about big-spending senators -- could be banned.
The proposals, by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
could also make it against the law for some non-profit groups to run advertisements in a
newspaper or send out email alerts to try and stop what they perceive as harmful policies.
The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), a non-profit drug reform organization, says: "Together,
these proposals represent one of the worst assaults on the freedom of speech and association
ever proposed in the United States."
Much of the wording and information in the rest of this article is from the Drug Policy
Alliance.
DPA notes that the proposed rulings are vague, in that they do not clearly state exactly
which communications would be illegal. This vagueness is part of the danger -- it could give
the federal government the ability to selectively enforce the rules to clamp down on any
speech or advertising it does not approve of or considers politically threatening.
The IRS ruling (Revenue Ruling 2004-6) could penalize nonprofit organizations that are
publicly critical of any elected official who is running for re-election. Under current law,
non-profit educational organizations cannot work to defeat or support federal candidates --
but they can educate voters on where politicians stand on certain issues, as long as the
organizations do not explicitly call for the defeat or re-election of a politician. However,
Revenue Ruling 2004-6 -- which makes these regulations more vague -- could change this,
making it illegal for advocacy group to do anything the IRS determines to be an attempt at
defeat or support of a candidate for federal office.
The FEC ruling (Advisory Opinion 2003-37) could prohibit non-profit organizations from
communicating any message -- through emails, newspaper ads, television commercials or
brochures -- that "promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes" any candidate for federal office.
It does this by re-defining the definition of a "campaign expenditure" to include
communications that promote or attack federal candidates. Because advocacy non-profits are
prohibited under existing law from making campaign expenditures, this ruling could make it
illegal for such an organization to simply send you email that criticize the actions of a
member of Congress if he or she also happens to be running for re-election.
Again, this could make it illegal for the Advocates to send a story like the one above,
criticizing politicians who waste your tax dollars.
As the ACLU says: "Making it unlawful to criticize the policies and actions of a sitting
President or Members of Congress except under the auspices of a registered political
committee is one of the most fundamental attacks on the freedom of speech and freedom of
association of American citizens ever contemplated by a governmental agency."
The Drug Policy Alliance has more information -- and a way you can send a message to your
congressional representatives protesting the ruling. Check it out, while it's still legal:
www.drugpolicy.org/news/02_05_04bush.cfm
- James W. Harris
(Sources: Drug Policy Alliance:
www.drugpolicy.org/news/02_05_04bush.cfm
ACLU:
www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=14877&c=42 )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Good News, Bad News, Unbelievable News" writer James W. Harris is editor of the LiberatorOnline. His articles have appeared in numerous magazines and newspapers, including TheNation, Reason, The Freeman, the National Taxpayers Union's Dollars and Sense, the Atlanta
Constitution, and many more. He has been a Finalist in the Mencken Awards, given by the Free Press Association for "Outstanding Journalism in Support of Liberty."
nothing less than "one of the most fundamental attacks on the freedom of speech and freedom
of association of American citizens ever contemplated by a governmental agency."
The proposed rules could prevent non-profit organizations from giving their members,
supporters and readers vital information about the political actions of federal officials who
are up for re-election.
The proposals are vague, but they suggest that even sending email stories criticizing the
actions of such officials -- like the story in this issue about big-spending senators -- could be banned.
The proposals, by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
could also make it against the law for some non-profit groups to run advertisements in a
newspaper or send out email alerts to try and stop what they perceive as harmful policies.
The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), a non-profit drug reform organization, says: "Together,
these proposals represent one of the worst assaults on the freedom of speech and association
ever proposed in the United States."
Much of the wording and information in the rest of this article is from the Drug Policy
Alliance.
DPA notes that the proposed rulings are vague, in that they do not clearly state exactly
which communications would be illegal. This vagueness is part of the danger -- it could give
the federal government the ability to selectively enforce the rules to clamp down on any
speech or advertising it does not approve of or considers politically threatening.
The IRS ruling (Revenue Ruling 2004-6) could penalize nonprofit organizations that are
publicly critical of any elected official who is running for re-election. Under current law,
non-profit educational organizations cannot work to defeat or support federal candidates --
but they can educate voters on where politicians stand on certain issues, as long as the
organizations do not explicitly call for the defeat or re-election of a politician. However,
Revenue Ruling 2004-6 -- which makes these regulations more vague -- could change this,
making it illegal for advocacy group to do anything the IRS determines to be an attempt at
defeat or support of a candidate for federal office.
The FEC ruling (Advisory Opinion 2003-37) could prohibit non-profit organizations from
communicating any message -- through emails, newspaper ads, television commercials or
brochures -- that "promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes" any candidate for federal office.
It does this by re-defining the definition of a "campaign expenditure" to include
communications that promote or attack federal candidates. Because advocacy non-profits are
prohibited under existing law from making campaign expenditures, this ruling could make it
illegal for such an organization to simply send you email that criticize the actions of a
member of Congress if he or she also happens to be running for re-election.
Again, this could make it illegal for the Advocates to send a story like the one above,
criticizing politicians who waste your tax dollars.
As the ACLU says: "Making it unlawful to criticize the policies and actions of a sitting
President or Members of Congress except under the auspices of a registered political
committee is one of the most fundamental attacks on the freedom of speech and freedom of
association of American citizens ever contemplated by a governmental agency."
The Drug Policy Alliance has more information -- and a way you can send a message to your
congressional representatives protesting the ruling. Check it out, while it's still legal:
www.drugpolicy.org/news/02_05_04bush.cfm
- James W. Harris
(Sources: Drug Policy Alliance:
www.drugpolicy.org/news/02_05_04bush.cfm
ACLU:
www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=14877&c=42 )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Good News, Bad News, Unbelievable News" writer James W. Harris is editor of the LiberatorOnline. His articles have appeared in numerous magazines and newspapers, including TheNation, Reason, The Freeman, the National Taxpayers Union's Dollars and Sense, the Atlanta
Constitution, and many more. He has been a Finalist in the Mencken Awards, given by the Free Press Association for "Outstanding Journalism in Support of Liberty."
