Find Your Congress Members:
Who is representing
your state in DC,
and how can you have a say?
Congressional Committees:
What they do and who to contact.
Posted September 23, 1995
BACKGROUND: This bill, offered by Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), would limit the "political advocacy" of nonprofit organizations, charities and advocacy groups that receive federal grants. These organizations, which include the American Red Cross, the Girl Scouts, the YMCA and the American Association of Retired Persons. The amendment would prohibit them from the use of grant money for lobbying and would limit the amount they could spend on "political advocacy" -- not only traditional lobbying of Congress but any efforts to influence executive or judicial decisions at any level of government -- to five percent of nonfederal money. The government gives out as much as $150 billion in these funds annually. Organizations could choose to give up federal money and lobby without restrictions. Groups recieving grants would be required to file annual reports to the government detailing their political activity.
STATUS: The House Appropriations Committee attached Istook's bill to the House Labor and Human Services 1996 appropriations bill on Aug. 4 by a vote of 28-20. An attempt to strike the Istook amendment was defeated that day, 232-187. A much narrower version has passed the Senate.
KEY PLAYERS: Rep. Istook and Rep. David McIntosh (R-IN), a freshman member, cosponsored Istook's measure. Rep. Skaggs led the fight to defeat the Istook amendment in August, and is still fighting the measure. Sens. Larry Craig (R-UT) and Alan Simpson (R-WY) sponsored the narrower Senate measure.
PRO: Nonprofit organizations spend too much money on lobbying activities, often aimed at securing more funds for future years. In a vicious circle, taxpayer money pays for lobbyists to ask for more taxpayer money, as the groups devote excessive resources and effort toward self-perpetuation rather than carrying out their missions.
"No longer will taxpayers' money be used as welfare for lobbyists." -- Rep. Ernest J. Istook (R-OK)
CON: Under the guise of cost-cutting, the measure is an element of the Republican Congress' campaign to "defund the left" by cutting off federal money to left-leaning interest groups and charities. Many worthy and essentially nonpartisan groups such as the Red Cross would be punished, and new record-keeping would further drain their funds. Even if such legislation did not unconstitutionally infringe on rights to free speech and political activity, the vast Orwellian network the government would establish to monitor political activity is anathema to the spirit of the Constitution and could be the start of a sinister, slippery slope of political surveillance.
"This amendment would establish a big government, big brother system of political controls. It would bring about the creation of a national database of political activity, and if you can believe this, a master computer file in Washington, D.C., covering everything from communications to contributions made by covered groups and their employees, managed by the government of the United States" -- Rep. David E. Skaggs (D-CO)
WHAT'S NEXT: Republicans are now trying to add the Istook amendment to the House-Senate conference version of the Treasury, Postal Service and White House 1996 appropriations bill. If included, each House would have to pass the final version of the bill, and it would be sent to the President to sign.
INSIDE SCOOP: The attempt to insert Istook's amendment to the Treasury, Postal Service and White House bill stalled the House-Senate conference on the measure. Senate Republicans are unsure whether they can garner support in their chamber for the bill if Istook's amendment is attached. Some also speculate that the amendment could cause the President to veto the entire bill. This is an issue that gets to the core of the Republicans' attempt to emasculate liberal Washington, and it touches nerves. When Istook first offered his amendment in August, debate on the House floor grew so heated that the speaker's gavel was smashed apart from repeated pounding.