Home

Subjects

What People Think

25% For, 75% Against

(put this on your site)

Take Action

Vote on this Bill
For
Against
Speak Out
Comment on this Bill
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues
Write Your Representative in Congress
Save & Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Google
Reddit
Yahoo!

H.R. 984, The Executive Branch Reform Act of 2007 (49 comments ↓)

H.R. 984 would provide for reform in the operations of the executive branch.

(read more ↓)


Cost per :

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Steve Landess

I received a message from the American Family Assocation and have read comments from several other organizations that urge Americans to contact their Representative to oppose this law because of the "restrictions" that it places on private individuals regarding their communications with government officials.

However, after reading the text of the law, I don't think that it places undo restrictions on citizens - it seems to me that the restrictions are the record-keeping requirements placed upon those with whom we are communicating that are bound by the new law.

Please help me understand!

Shannon Oswald

I, too, am confused by the AFA "urgent" message. I have read the text of the propsed bill and can't find any references implying or directing any grassroots organization to do anything beyond what they are already doing. I'm confused. Please help.

Charlie Asbornsen

I got that too Steve. Call me cynical but I think that the AFA is assuming that people won't look too deeply into the bill. I think the only private individuals who will be effected will be former government officials who have to sit through the 2 year cooling off period before they can get jobs as lobbyists. Of course, that's a major swat at the current administration.

Perhaps I have a flawed or incomplete understanding and I've missed a subtext of the legalese. If someone out there can clarify it for me and show me how this is restricing the First Amendment I'd appreciate it.

Danny

I just read this, and it seemed to clear things up a bit for me:

http://www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/WaxmanDavisArticle.pdf

Marlana Norris

I, also, don't understand why the AFA has sent the urgent message. The AFA doesn't think that we, the average citizen, will look up such bills to make our own opinions.

Shanno Oswald

I have reviewed a site called the Nation Prayer Network and it seems that the AFA took the NPN's assumptions about what the liberal Dem's will do next and mixed it with the undefendable position that HR 984 is bad and came up with a mis-leading AFA action email. It's not right.

Terri

Regardless of the "fears" of what will happen next, regardless of the interpretations of what this means to free speech, the AFA's mass e-mail contains outright lies, and extreme misinformation. They either didn't do their homework before sending out this e-mail campaign, or they expect that their 'constituents' will not read the bills themselves. After reading the pdf mentions above with the WaxmanDavis Article, I am still unconvinced that this is a terrible bill. If this is something you believe in, you shouldn't be afraid for people to know it.

Dave Strader

As a one time legislative researcher I have a little experience at making heads or tails out of the "gooblygoop" of the language of legislation. The key problems in this bill are:
1. Reporting of ALL SIGNIFICANT COMMINICATION is covered. If you -send a letter, email, voicemail or speak in a hallway- to anyone in the executive branch they are required to report that communication.
2. The only people exempt from this is communication between the President and the Vice President, these two can talk to one another about policy without reporting it.
3. Congress EXCLUDES itself from these requirements.
This bill is a nightmare, it will either lead to the outright proabition from communicating with the executive branch or require every governmental employee involved with policy making of any kind to either maintain a minute by minute diary of all communication or hire someone to write down every communication in the course of living!

Richey

I agree with Shanno and Terri. The AFA, which has always been a politically biased front for the GOP, is deliberatly misleading people. This is what they do all the time with their "alerts". Anyone who has been paying attention knows this administration has been the most secretive, non-complying administration in history. This is one way to control lobbyists as well as the Executive Branch. It does not hinder any public record but in fact requires "make available for public inspection and copying at reasonable times the reports filed under this title".

I'm surprised the AFA hasn't blamed this on the homosexuals, as this is usually what their "alerts" amount to.

Sean

Yes, the AFA seems overboard here. This bill is concerned with the Executive branch, so it shouldn't affect their ability to send emails to Congress.
At the same time, I don't like how it requires the Executive to disclose all contact period, including emails from you or me, while not requiring the same thing of those who write the laws--Congress! If this disclosure requirement should be in place, it should be for everyone in Congress as well as the Executive. But that's a huge burden and there are probably better ways of doing that.

Doug

Richey, interesting that you would paint the AFA with such venom. Of course it's biased. All political action organizations are. That's why they exist. They represent the opinions that many others hold. They have the right to do so in our representative democracy.

I would hate for a bill like this (I'll grant that it is difficult to understand) to cut off communication from the people to the Executive Branch. That hurts liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, heterosexuals, whites, blacks, and blue & white collar workers - in short, EVERYBODY. The bill does sound like it creates undo administrative red tape, and why is it necessary? How does it help? I am not convinced of the rightness or 'wrongness' of the bill yet, but I am going to investigate further.

Mike

This bill would let the "sunshine" on the activities of the Executive Branch. It would open up meetings as to who attended for example the "President's Energy Council" meetings that Dick Cheney will not release. If lobbyists are makeing policy for the US government this Bill will make it known to the US public. HooRah!

Matt via IA.

From HR 984....

‘‘(2) SIGNIFICANT CONTACT.—
16 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
17 subparagraph (B), the term ‘significant contact’
18 means oral or written communication (including
19 electronic communication) that is MADE BY A
20 PRIVATE PARTY to a covered executive branch official
21 in which such private party seeks to influ
22 ence official action by any officer or employee
23 of the executive branch of the United States.

This is a complete WASTE of our (taxpayer) money!! What the hell do we need to keep records of all written and oral communications for? This is great!! Lets hire a bunch of people to record all these communications, and (as requested in the bill) develop a computer system to keep track of it all and create a cross-reference system. And then keep it all for 6 years. How flippin' idiotic!

Jay

Thanks, Mike, you said what I wanted to say. I went out looking for info.
I think the real point is that the Executive Branch doesn't make laws Congress does (so we can still ahppily email our congressman).

I think there have been a number of fishy things that have happened in the Executive Branch over the past couple years that none of us are fully privy to. Honestly, if there wasn't something to cover up, why wouldn't they tell us? Like the founders I'm suspicious of the Government (no matter who's running it).

Michelle

I typed HR984 in google and then began reading articles regarding as I came across them, I believe this article http://www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/WaxmanDavisArticle.pdf gives a good explanation of the ramifications of this bill. I am opposed to any bill that seeks to limit the influence of the citizen, increase the power of congress and limit the power of another branch.

Ed

This bill means that if you or I send an email to a representative or senator urging them to take action on a particular issue, the following will be made public:
Your name and a summary of the nature of your communication, including the date of the communication, the subject matter of your communication and the specific executive branch action to which your communication relates.
Whatever you say will be publicly available.

Dave Strader

Great Discussion... For those who "Hate" the AFA for their email you might want to check out some of the others wanting this thing killed! How about the ACLU! Not exactly a GOP front. Hate always blinds people to truth. Once you cannot examine both sides of an issue with an open mind you have lost all pretents of an intellegent analysis.

Ed

To correct my previous post, replace "representative or senator" with anyone in the executive branch.

Kelly

Read between the lines here! This is going to create a huge paperwork burden for the government. So what will be next on the agenda --- To eliminate that burden...And how do you think they will do that? Simple - ELIMINATE THE COMMUNICATION!!!

Doug

Thanks, Dave. Great points!

Our political system is one of checks and balances. It is outstanding. Just like I want to petition my congressman freely, so I would also like to petition the Executive Branch as I please. It, after all proposes laws to Congress.

Do you think they are going to take my (Joe Citizen's) calls in the future if they need to document it?! NO way! Expect lots of busy signals, even when Hillary is in the White House.

GregoryFB

This bill and its partner bill S.1. when put together would make McCain Feingold look like an open forum. The "gag" part of the bill will come in the conference committe where the restriction on those who put information together to contact elected officials as restricted by S.1., are put together with the office holder requirements of HR984. then you can expect to see NO public information or "alerts" coming to you from ANY source. Effectively cutting out all but the "approved" media - AP, CBS, NBC, DNC, etc. - from communicating information. BE AFRAID of the "1984" right speak requirements in these bills.

Bruce

In reading the actual bill and other postings, I note that Rep. Waxman is putting the requirement only on the Executive branch. Mr. Waxman, along with other members of Congress, are untouched by this bill. This is simply window shading for a witch hunt. I wonder if the bill will be modified or removed if Hillary gets into office! I like Matt's response - what a waste of time. It's another example of making the government bigger and wasting more of our tax dollars.

BRIAN CROSBY

I believe any bill that would limit the private sectors influence on people we all vote for and then keeping records on those private individuals is as close to comunism and hitler as we could be

Terri

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...

Randy Hall

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.

bcc

allin all if it were just self regultating,what a great achievement but its not what it is,is a way to stereotype;and leave either the minority or majority view point at the backdoor not to be seen or heard

Charles Asbornsen

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.

Bruce

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

Mark in ABQ

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.

Legfederal@aol.com

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.

Legfederal@aol.com

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

PubSchTeacher

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.

Melissa

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.

Liam

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.

Toby

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?

Andrew

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.

Roger

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.

Bryan

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.

Drew

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.

Doug

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

Steve P

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.

Cheryl

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.

Brant M

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.

Herb

I am more concerned about the impact on free expression this bill creates than about the problems it proposes to remedy.

John Peterson

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.

Ed L

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.

HBB

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.

RKH

FROM THE COMMENTS I'VD READ ABOUT THIS BILL ,IT SOUND S LIKE THE BEGINNING AND THE ENDING OF FREE SPEACH

JTW

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.

Add Comment

Comments are limited to 1,000 characters. Please do other visitors the courtesy of expressing yourself concisely. WashingtonWatch.com bears no responsibility for comments nor any obligation to publish them. Comments that are impolite, off-topic, violations of others' rights, or advertisements are likely to be removed.
 
(To request new code, make a copy of your comment and hit "Refresh" in your browser.)

Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_HR_984.html

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)