Elizabeth Carney at National Journal today has a column making the case for the government to spy on the political activities of its citizens.
That isn’t exactly how she puts it, of course. So-called “grassroots lobbying disclosure” is apparently back in fashion after some shenanigans pulled by a lobbying firm to misrepresent the views of several community leaders on climate change issues. Carney reports:
The investigation into a prominent lobbying firm’s fake letters to Congress points up the dangers to K Street in so-called grassroots and grass-tops lobbying…
…Bonner & Associates, which sent out the letters…got a temporary reprieve last week after Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, abruptly canceled a scheduled hearing on the faked letters following a rules dispute….
Markey is investigating why three members of Congress received more than a dozen letters opposing climate change legislation that forged the identities of seniors advocates and civil rights leaders, and why the lawmakers weren’t notified until weeks after lobbyists discovered the fraud. The Sierra Club has also asked the Justice Department to investigate.
Clearly the actions of those responsible for the fake letters (Bonner & Associates claims it was a rogue temporary employee) are reprehensible, and Congress is right to investigate the fraud perpetrated on Congress, the firm who hired Bonner, and most certainly the groups who unwittingly had their names hijacked to perpetrate the fraud.
But the call for disclosure of grassroots lobbying is misplaced, and would have little effect on unethical practices by some. Worse, it threatens to put even more political activity by private citizens under the government’s thumb while chilling citizens’ First Amendment right to petition their government and speak to fellow citizens.
Driving the calls for disclosure is greater irritation on the part of some that a sizeable segment of the American public just won’t shut up. Deriding them as “Astroturf,” the self-anointed “reform” community has decided that citizens who are contacted by an activist group, union, business firm, or anybody else and urged to contact their elected officials, are a grave threat to the Republic.
Why, some of these people contacting their elected officials might have false information! Or views that aren’t “authentic” and “genuine!” They might even voice opinions that aren’t in line with those of the anointed ones!
Disclosure, we are told, would clear up the problems associated with unregulated, unlicensed, and unapproved (by the anointed) political speech. Keeping tabs on who is talking to their government isn’t enough, now we need to know who is talking to citizens and encouraging them to talk to their government!
The chilling of political speech that would accompany such regulations is obvious, and is a big part of why this sort of disclosure regime was stripped out of the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. Testifying against disclosure of grassroots lobbying in 2007, CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith noted that “Efforts to force disclosure of grassroots lobbying needlessly open up that field to… pressure. Such forced disclosure can make seasoned professionals reluctant to assist unpopular causes or those contrary to the current administration, resulting in a chilling effect that would deprive grassroots organizations of the services of talented consultants…”
CCP also published 2 Policy Primers on the dangers of grassroots lobbying disclosure, making similar points.
As is so often the case, the “reform” community has jumped on some scandal and is using it to demand even greater regulation of the political speech of American citizens, in the guise of “cleaning up” politics by “getting money out of the system.” This particular scandal departs from the normal “reform” playbook in only one noticeable way, by using a scandal that is actually in some way related to the activity they wish to suppress (usually the scandal and the “reform” are utterly unconnected, such as Connecticut’s decision to adopt taxpayer financing of political campaigns in response to a Governor who accepted under-the-table gifts like free renovations on a cottage).
Other than that single near-virtue, this is just another “reform” like all others, aiming to put the free and unfettered political activity of citizens under the watchful eye (and thumb) of the government.
