White House moves to restrict criticism of stimulus projects

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
05/30/09

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/TapscottsCopyDesk/White-House-moves-to-restrict-criticism-of-stimulus-projects--46540777.html

A new White House policy on permissible lobbying on economic recovery and stimulus projects has taken a decidedly anti-First Amendment turn. It's a classic illustration of Big Government trying to control every aspect of a particular activity and in the process running up against civil liberty.

Check out this passage from a post on the White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added):

"First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

"Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest -after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

"Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency's website documenting the contact."

For the full blog post by Eisen, go here.

The key passage is the reference to expanding regulation from registered lobbyists to "anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program."

This is the Camel's nose under the tent, being poked because of special circumstances. Let government restrict political expression - i.e. lobbying of government officials regarding policy - in one small, supposedly specialized area and not long after the specialized area starts expanding. Eventually, all political expression regarding all policy will become subject to government regulation.

More on this as it develops. And trust me, it will develop.

UPDATE:Great minds thinking alike

Carter Wood at Shopfloor sees the same threat to the First Amendment:

"Lobbyists and organizations that lobby complained that the White House's restrictions on lobbying on stimulus fund projects were discriminatory and unfair because the same restrictions didn't apply to people like corporate executives or officials. So these memorandumly noted changes address that fairness issue by expanding the ban on orally petitioning the government or expressing one's views through speech. In the interests of transparency the First Amendment must be sacrificed.

"The restrictions are also ambiguous enough that a lobbyist or other petitioner won't be sure how to fully comply. So if someone runs afoul of White House officials, a phone call to a news outlet or a friendly

Bruce W. Haupt J.D.

Group Member

May 30, 2009 5:52:57 PM

This post has not been rated.

Chris

The First Amendment's freedom of speech clause, if I recall correctly, has always had some restrictions applied to it.

Perhaps the best known is that one is not free to yell fire in a crowded autitorium in the absence of any fire.

Another applies to individuals, who due to contact with classified material by way of either government or contractor positions, agree not to discuss said items for a specific period of time after leaving either government or contractors status with 'outsiders' or in a reckless fashion even with 'insiders.'

A third would apply to the area known as 'commercial speech.' such as medical products, whereby way of either knowing and intentional commission or omission, a product or its effects is materially misrepresented to the public.

Fourthly, where the author is clearly expressing an 'opinion,' this is not protected from being expressed by libel, slander or defimation laws and it is most helpful if such a statement contains the verbiage that it is AN OPINION OF THE AUTHOR. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion about virtually anything.

Fifthly, individuals in the public eye, such as especially politicians and movie stars, etc., to some degree assume rthe risk of fame or office and a QUALIFIED privilege exist where so long as they are not maliciously or i9ntentionally liabeled, slanderfed or otherwise defamed, immunity from DAMAGES exist.

---------------------------------------------------

As I read the White House restriction it initially appears to me to be aimed at lobbyest speaking or acting thru 3rd parfties, where a well established conflict of interest would otherwise exist.

I do not believe that any court, either state or federal, would give further meaning to any such restrictions imposed upon the public as a whole and should a prosecutor seek for such a court so to do, what are known as RULE 11 SANCTIONS [those brought for pursuing a no merrit claim would be forthcoming upon request for same.

Bruce W. Haupt J.D.

Group Member

May 31, 2009 9:39:15 PM

This post has not been rated.

"The fate of a country is inseparable from the fate of its currency."


	Inbox		X

OK CHRIS -- THIS SHOULD BE TO YOUR LIKING FROM A FRIEND OF MINE.

Everything Barack Obama, the Federal Reserve, and Congress are doing was predicted in startling detail almost two decades ago by a famous Nobel Prize-winning economist. Milton Friedman.

Friedman passed away in 2006, but in his prophetic book, he described how, facing massive deficits, the U.S. government would dramatically increase the money supply; why all foreign countries would stop buying our debt; then the Fed would start buying our Treasury bills; and why this would call cause massive inflation. He also predicted that our media would claim inflation was no problem at all.

All of this is coming to pass! Make no mistake about it - the Obama administration is embracing massive _inflationary deficit spending_, In just 100 days, Barrack Obama has more than doubled the U.S. money supply committing the government to at least $7 trillion in new spending and recently warned the American people to expect trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the media has been falling over itself to praise Obama's "bold initiatives," and the question no one has been asking is, "Where is all of this money coming from?"

*Decades ago, Friedman* *warned that the coming inflation could "destroy" our country. "Inflation is a disease, a dangerous and sometimes fatal disease that, if not checked in time, can destroy a society."* (Money Mischief, Page 19)* "The fate of a country is inseparable from the fate of its currency."*