November 18th, 2009 • 3:18 amRep. Bachmann Exposes Corrupt House Rules
Thanks to this post on Huffington Post, Michele Bachmann’s Emergency House Call event is helping to expose the corrupt House rules. First a little background is required.
CREW is asking for an investigation into whether the event violated this House rule:
In a letter sent to the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), CREW contends that Bachmann violated House rules by using her official member’s website to garner “grassroots lobbying” for the health care protest in question.
The Members’ Handbook specifies: The content of a Member’s Website…[may] not include grassroots lobbying or solicit support for a Member’s position.” CREW argues that Bachmann broke this rule.
Think about what this rule asks. This rule is a violation of Congress’s First Amendment rights. Furthermore, this rule restricts or prohibits representatives’ ability to tell people to petition their representatives. That’s the epitome of arrogance.
Earlier this year, the House and Senate tried prohibiting members from blogging, using YouTube, FaceBook and Twitter. Only our activism prevented that. Still, Speaker Pelosi slipped this rule in with the intent of restricting spontaneous outbursts of We The People.
What’s the purpose of this rule if not censorship? Speaker Pelosi and her tyrant minions have a history of trying to silence their opponents. It isn’t surprising that they’ve instituted a rule that attempts to limit Congress’s free speech rights.
Technorati: Censorship, Speaker Pelosi, Huffington Post, CREW, Democrats, YouTube, Blogging, Twitter, FaceBook, Michele Bachmann, Investigation, Republicans, First Amendment
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Entries RSS2 Feed
“What’s the purpose of this rule if not censorship?”
I think the purpose is to limit the official legislative site to being informational, and not political.
Taxpayer money is used to fund the official websites, so I’m guessing the taxpayers want these sites to be information-driven (not ideology-driven) and not be turned into campaign sites for each rep (the representatives generally have separate campaign websites, funded by their campaigns).
It’s the same as the “official” mailings that come from reps. Those are also taxpayer funded. Generally I want those to be informational (updates on legislation moving through Congress, for example), and not the member’s ideological position or a lobbying attempt (to get me to come to a protest rally).
I don’t feel that Bachmann’s free speech rights have been threatened. She has more rights than any of the rest of us . . . nobody invites me to go on Fox every week to express my opinions to millions of viewers, for example. Bachmann seems to speak very freely and has platforms that the rest of us can only dream of to spread her views.
I don’t feel she’s a victim here. The rules are meant to use taxpayer money for informational updates, not campaign promotion, and the rules apply to all reps so they are fair.
Try again to defend her, with a different angle. This one doesn’t pass muster.
Comment by Anna • 18Nov2009 @ 11:09 am
Gary I cannot believe you’d have wanted Wellstone to have used his official Senate website to hustle reelection next cycle.
Come on Gary, tell me I am wrong on the Wellstone thought, AND that you’re fine with Ellison were he to start using his House website to post about the beauty of the Muslim faith. Or about his wanting a rally orgnaized to advocate shutting down private health insurers and establishing single payer, and that he would push the thing on the House website. Or that he’d be fine with you if he posted on the official website that Col. Kline is an a**h**e, since that’s his speech rights at issue, his right to do that. Decorum has no place.
Without a rule against commingling electioneering with job-related politicking, it would be that, for every incumbent. And if it were done skillfully enough there’d never be an incumbent losing an election and taxpayers would pick up the tab.
Gary, you cannot be standing for that.
Look, Gary, how badly Bachmann’s abused the franking privilege, and she’s not the first to have done that. Think how she’d act if there were no website restraints. Worse than she did, in breaking the clear and well grounded rule that she knew of or should have known of. Either way, it’s wrong and excessive.
The rules are too lax, not too tight. The franking privilege should be eliminated - the playing field should be level, not biased in favor of incumbency. Only incumbents get the website and franking privileges, it’s not a right but a privilege, and there are rules that too often are winked at, but they are there to curb gross misuse. Of a privilege.
Comment by eric z • 18Nov2009 @ 5:41 pm