http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills info@washingtonwatch.com http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16836 I've done some research on this bill and basically it would require Executive branch officials to "significant" contact with private parties regarding government action. I interpret that to mean that if an official is involved with government actions concerning a private party (i.e. contract with said party's company) the official would be required to log any signifant contact with the party (i.e. going to dinner with the CEO of contracted company). This is a good thing and in no way would effect an individual's ability to contact a government agency or entity.... 16836@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16501 Nothing will ever completely stop the government's obsession with databases, especially now that computers render them so easy to establish and maintain, but if the people harbor any hope whatsoever of retaining what little privacy is left to them they must stop every new database dead in its tracks -- no matter how well-meaning it might appear. And if any database ever needing stopping dead in its tracks it's this idiotic, make-work piece of needless nonsense. The government has no business knowing anything about me except whether I've paid my outrageous taxes. Anyone who thinks government is the people's friend and a force for good is a gullible fool. All governments are evil and their evil increases proportionately to the amount of information they're allowed to collect on the population.... 16501@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16512 FROM THE COMMENTS I'VD READ ABOUT THIS BILL ,IT SOUND S LIKE THE BEGINNING AND THE ENDING OF FREE SPEACH... 16512@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16445 The McCain Feingold bill put enough restriction on our communications. Seems to me as the last thing I would want is to document for the public what communication I do make with elected representatives.... 16445@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16428 I'm a Life member of NRA but don't always agree with every NRA position. I belong to other organizations and likewise don't always agree with everything they support. Under this law it wouldn't matter. Everytime these organizations contact an official my name will be on the membership roles and it will be assumed that I share whatever opinion the organization has expressed. Imagine combining this bill's contact list with ZABASEARCH and Mapquest. Anyone could be at your door at anytime.... 16428@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16385 I am more concerned about the impact on free expression this bill creates than about the problems it proposes to remedy.... 16385@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16350 AS has been stated before, this bill may seem benign to those who take it at face value. That is the intent of its authors. It truly could lead to great harassment and creations of new lists of people to watch. Any limitations on our rights should be opposed because if we give up one, another will be the next target. The bill, if passed, will discourage citizen participation in the legislative process.... 16350@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16353 Everything is in layers and the Government has the thickest pile. If our Government followed the Constitution, those people would have little or nothing to sell and therefore would have little to hide and little on which to report. Can we ever get back to the Constitution or do we keep building the layers higher... 16353@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16354 The problem I see with the bill is this, if you contact the executive branch and give your opinion (whether it be to the Attorney General, the President (who makes executive orders affecting as many people as any law congress passes), your Name AND ADDRESS are published, opening you up to a barrage of pressure from groups who hold a different view point. History shows that some small minority of the groups will even resort to violence against those who don't share the same view. Do you want to risk this? I do agree with the rest of the provisions of this bill, which are intended to close the revolving door between government employees and contractors who use offers of lucrative jobs to try to influence government decisions.... 16354@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16355 As of yesterday (6/11/07) we received a correspondence from the NRA-ILA via snail mail and they, too, are concerned about this bill (as Bryan stated in the comment above). Reason being, any time anyone that is pro-second amendment emails, writes, faxes or phones any official in the executive branch of the government, their personal information, such as name and address, will be recorded on a government computer and posted on the internet for any government official, anti-gun zealot, employer, insurance company, and/or criminal to have access to.... 16355@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16366 I agree with Steve P: having my personal information placed into public record as a consequence of writing to express an opinion is a form of intimidation. Democrats are quick to see intimidation when someone suggests that voters actually identify themsleves prior to voting, but fail to see it here. This bill is all about biasing the political process.... 16366@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16341 From what I gather from some of my affiliations, this bill would require every PAC, labor union,the NRA, the NAACP, or the AMA, for that matter, who lobbied the Executive Branch to submit the names and addresses for every memeber who contributed to the organization. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't need my name and address showing up half a dozen times on a government report because of my legal right to belong to clubs and organizations that tend to represent the way I think. My name of the IRS rolls is enough government reporting for me.... 16341@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16254 Whether this bill is intended to stop the extreme privacy or to gag the public opinion, the fact of the matter stands that if you voice your opinion you will be listed, you anonymity forever gone, the price for your First Amendment rights will now be your "name in lights" for every zealot to see and respond to by whatever means they choose.... 16254@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16262 We can talk and get hot about AFA and all the other things but that is not the issue. The issue is that the Congress is trying to scare off communications with the Executive branch. If you want every message you might send to that section of the government posted on a web site for EVERYONE in the world to read and then use or react to fine. I don't. It is a path we don't need to start. Think of all the unintended consequences that will come. Don't go there - it will begin the destruction of our country.... 16262@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#16226 The problem I see with this bill is the potential for harm it may cause private citizens. Think about some of the hot-button issues in this country pro/anti abortion, pro/anti immigration reform, pro/anti anything. Anyone that speaks out will have their name out there so any radical from anywhere can locate them. The radicals on the other side of an issue will have your name, but you will not have any way to protect yourself from attacks other than never contacting your government at all. I can see what the bill "may" be trying to acomplish, but I think the reality will be more about shutting up the citizens. Who will exercise their right of free speech knowing full it could put their homes, careers, or families at risk?... 16226@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#15595 Please, people, at least keep the distinction between what the bill does and what the unintended consequences would be. I've read through the whole thing. The idea that the Congressmen that put it into place are INTENDING to stop communication is simply not supported. The bill is INTENDING to reverse the trend of extreme secrecy, which has largely gone into place since Bush took office, whatever the unintended consequences may be.... 15595@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 13 May 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#15562 To Dave Strader, former legislative researcher. Thank you for both comments, one informing the true meaning of the Act, which is to record who is saying what and to limit or eliminate interraction between our republickan government and the citizens. It IS a Nightmare! Keeping lists of people's opinions leads us to the Gulag. The wording of this bill is blah and vague. What's underneath is deadly.... 15562@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 11 May 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#15184 I appreciate the AFA's paragraph of retraction on their website. But, couldn't they send out a second e-mail? Why bury their apology in a corner somewhere? In either case, the legislation seems like a bad idea. Perhaps they did us all a favor by putting it out there! At least they got us all to read through HR 984 with a fine-toothed comb.... 15184@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#15141 Over 8,000 Executive Branch officials would be required to report nearly any "significant contact" from any "private party," which is defined to include essentially everybody except other government officials. A "significant contact" is defined to be any "oral or written communication (including electronic communication) . . . in which the private party seeks to influence official action by any officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States." This covers just about every e-mail or fax, solicited or unsolicited, in which a citizen or representative of an organization expresses an opinion on something an official or agency has done or might do.... 15141@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#15142 So, if you want to send an e-mail or other communication expressing an opinion for or against a government policy, consider in advance that your action would be recorded in a government database, available on the internet to anybody -- including social associates, bosses, customers, or others who might not share your view on a controversial issue. This will, of course, have a chilling effect on citizens exercising their right to petition those who govern them, especially on issues disfavored by the news media -- which is part of the purpose of the bill. More about how this would work in this memo: http://www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/WaxmanDavisArticle.pdf To take action against this bill, go here: http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/alert/?alertid=9319341&type=CO... 15142@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#15024 It seems like its a question of ideology. Do we want to increase overhead by 23 cents per family in return for greater accountability from the Executive branch? I'dlike to wait until the Alberto Gonzalez thing shakes out. I'd consider the communication covering the hirings and firings of Federal prosecuters to be significant. I would not consider a dinner invitation from a congressman's ofice to the White House staffer to be significant. Of course if they write it off as a business expense, they should record what they spoke about. The AFA hasn't written me back expaining the urgency of this issue, so I am assuming they are engaging in Spam-em/scare-em.... 15024@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#15025 I just got the AFA email and went to check out the bill, as others did. Additionally, I clicked the link on the AFA email that was supposed to take me to more information about the bill. That link has been updated to contain a correction to the earlier email and to explain why they were wrong about this bill. It actually includes the statement, "We were wrong." It seems to me they've made a good-faith effort here. http://www.afa.net/housebill984.asp... 15025@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#15055 Dave Strader's and Matt's comments here are absolutely correct, this bill is a nightmare! Imagine for a moment if YOU are the president or vice president(regardless of your party affiliation). You couldn't communicate with anyone - verbally or otherwise - on any matter of policy without having it documented. To do so would be a violation of law. The legal harrassment of the executive branch would be endless, but the activities of congressmen and non-elected persons (see: First Lady Hillary Clinton's plan for nationalized healthcare - 1993) would be exempt! AFA is crying wolf, but HR 984 is bad, bad, bad legislation. It's an exexutive harrassment bill, pure and simple, and come January 2009, the sword will may reveal two edges.... 15055@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#14974 I actually do understand the objections to the bill itself - however, it does NOT do what the AFA claims it does. They have either been grossly misinformed or are quite willing to stir public outrage with lies. If they included the reasons that Dave Strader, Michelle and others of like mind have outlined and didn't provide completely inaccurate information, I would be happy to support them. I personally would not let a bill like this limit what I have to say simply because I'm sure they are already keeping records of such things - they are just not compiling them. However, I agree with those who state that it is completely inappropriate to apply such requirements of only one branch of government. As to the comment about Hilary - Waxman is a Dem, but Davis is a Republican. This is a bi-partisan bill...... 14974@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_984.html#14977 First of all, if this bill is good enough for the Executive Brach, then it should apply to all three branches of government, but it's plain to see that is nothing other than "Chicken Little" legislation and would create more bureaucratic red tape. It's obvious to me that this bill is designed just to appease the "hate Bush/Cheney" clique and I don't trust any bill introduced by the "Rat" Henry Waxman. By the same token, I don't trust mass warnings from humbug religious organizations like the AFA.... 14977@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT