Over the past couple weeks, Congress has been attempting to violate the First Ammendment rights of every American, and, as is typical, the Dead Fish Wrapper has been completely silent on the issue.

As part of Congress' attempts to pass lobbying reform, SB1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. was introduced in the Senate. Part of the bill was Section 220, the Disclosure of Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying section.

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.

(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.

`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity-- `

(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity; `
(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity; `
(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity; `
(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or `
(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity. `

(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that-- `

(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and `

(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.

What this means is that any organization that dares to communicate to more than 500 people that they should contact their congressional representatives regarding any issue would be subject to all regulations that are applicable to professional K Street lobbying firms. So a group like Focus on the Family, my church, (which has more than 500 members), or even a blog with more than 500 readers, would have to register with Congress and fight with mountains of red tape. They would have to report every communication that encourage people to use their First Ammendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". And, the penalties for failure to comply with these stifling regulations would be up to $100,000 per instance.

What this amounted to was Congress - and Democrats in particular - attempting to insulate themselves from the voting public and muzzle anybody that would dare to oppose them. Why? Because the liberals are tired of trying to force their liberal policies on the public and having the public tell them what they thought.

An interesting point about this legislation was who it doesn't impact. As stated by Carrie Gordon Earl of Focus on the Family:

"It does not affect labor unions, corporations, 527 groups, Hollywood-elite types or the George Soroses of the world," she said. "It affects folks who, on a regular basis, communicate with the grassroots and pass along information."

When this was made public last week, it raised a firestorm. Senate offices were deluged with calls, faxes, e-mails, and letters. The blogosphere was filled with entries about the dangers of the bill. Even the American Criminal and Leftist Union (aka the ACLU) issued a statement against the provision.

In response to the outcry, Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah introduced an ammendment - with 7 other co-sponsors - to the bill that stripped section 220 from SB1. The vote on the ammendment was taken on 1/17, and passed 55-43. Eight Democrats crossed the line to vote with the Republicans. SB1 then passed with a vote of 96-2.

The scary thing about this is that 43 Democrats voted against the Bennett amendment. 43 Democrats think it's okay to violate the free speech promised in the Constitution. It's okay to abuse the First Ammendment to protect pornography and violence, but it's not permissible to use it to protect what is expliclty stated: the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". This is why the liberals - especially those in Congress - disgust me to no end.

One thing to note is that this assault is not over. Nancy Pelosi is introducing a similar bill in the House that would have the same restrictions on free speech of grassroots lobbyists.

With all of this happening, how much coverage do you think was provided by the Fish Wrapper? You guessed it - almost nothing. The only story all week was a typically slanted AP piece on 1/18, about the disagreement about an ammendment the Republicans had submitted which would have given the President lite-item veto authority. According to the article:

With the vote, the bill was effectively driven from the Senate floor.

Yet, the bill was passed the same night as the article was published. Gotta love accurate reporting.

If the roles had been reversed, and the Republicans had been trying to pass something like this, do you think it would have been ignored like this? No, it would be all over the front page. But because it's the liberal Democrats, the MSM and the Fish Wrapper try to cover it up.