roundtable: Re: Nonprofit gag rule - why not cover fortune 500?

roundtable: Re: Nonprofit gag rule - why not cover fortune 500?

Re: Nonprofit gag rule - why not cover fortune 500?

Vigdor Schreibman - FINS (fins@access.digex.net)
Wed, 23 Aug 1995 23:36:20 -0400 (EDT) 

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 23:36:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: Nonprofit gag rule - why not cover fortune 500?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950822183734.16303E-100000@essential.essential.org>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950823231122.13755A-100000@access1.digex.net>


On Tue, 22 Aug 1995, James Love wrote:
> 
> I think that someone should offer an amendment to the gag rule which 
> expands it to cover any profit making corporation that receives public 
> funds in many way.  That would quickly make all fortune 500 lobbying 
> illegal, and that wouldn't be such a bad outcome.  jamie

  Yes, indeed.  The subject was discussed on Aug 3, following Rep. Meek's
observation that big defense contractors should have to play by the same
rules as others who obtain funds from the Government.  Similar arguments
were presented by Rep. Menendez that the prohibition against "grant" 
recipients should extend to benefits derived from tax status.  Arguments
count for little when one knows how to count Republican votes, however,
which are being aserted not to be reasonable but to be rational: 
destroying the liberal opposition is the game plan.

  Without a fully mobilized citizenry asserting the ultimate power in
these matter, the season of plunder will have no bounds. 

  Vigdor


Vigdor Schreibman
<fins@access.digex.net>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> James Love, Taxpayer Assets Project; internet:  love@tap.org
> P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036; v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176
> TAP's web page is www.essential.org/tap/tap.html
> 
> On Tue, 15 Aug 1995 CWHITCOM@bentley.edu wrote:
> > 
> > NONPROFIT GAG RULE
> > 
> > The move to drastically limit public advocacy work financed by
> > federal funds was passed on August 4, 1995 as a part of the
> > Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations bill.  Rep. David Skaggs
> > (D-CO) proposed an amendment to delete the "Istook amendment"
> > but it failed by a vote of 187-232.  The appropriations bill won
> > by a vote of 219-208.  Rep. David Obey (D-WI) stated that the
> > bill was a "mean and ugly piece of work" and that it was a
> > "vicious exercise of public power".  The  August 7, New York
> > Times described the amendment as a "remarkable rider" which
> > "calls for a cutoff of grants to nonprofit entities if they
> > spend more than a threshold amount - even of money from other
> > sources - on political advocacy.  A cancer society that gets
> > Federal funds might then not be able to testify before congress
> > on the best prospects for cancer research".
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > This nasty piece of legislation still must pass the Senate
> > before it becomes law.  The advocacy group, Independent Sector,
> > will be holding "road shows" in states where members of the
> > Senate Appropriations Labor HHS Committee reside in order to
> > drum up opposition during the next series of legislative steps.

[CNI Home Page]