For me, the real question is why the Diocese of Bridgeport should be forced to register as a lobbyist simply for paying for bus transportation. Obviously the law calls for it, but I question the Constitutionality of the law (at least in principle, if not in legal fact.)The problem arose because the Diocese of Bridgeport paid the cost of the buses used to bring people to the state capitol. That cost exceeded $2000.00, which triggered the registration requirement. Bishop Lori indicated that there was not enought time to register
but the real question is why the payment plan wasn’t better thought out. Apparentlly the Diocese of Norwich and the Eastern Diocese at Samford (I’m not sure which rite) did not encounter the same problems and they had people there. As I mentioned earlier, I wonder if there are other factors here.
As for the constitutional requirements, based upon what has happened in other localities and states over time, I don’t see that being a cover for what went on. The only way things might work out in favor of the diocese here is if suitable questions can be raised about the legislative intent when passing this legislation. If not, it’s just more laity money down the drain
The law is unconstitutional in the way the state is enforcing it. That’s the gist of the story.I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I’m an educated person. I’d be interested to get an objective analysis from someone with a Con Law background.
When does petitioning the government end and lobbying begin? I’m not sure there’s much difference.The law is unconstitutional in the way the state is enforcing it. That’s the gist of the story.
Basically, any law which may impede a constitutional right must involve an important state interest and be the lightest restriction (and most effective) to achieve that goal. If the state wants to protect the ethics of its lawmakers from being seduced by lobbyists, worrying about folks arriving at the capitol in buses ain’t the way to go about it. The state needs to show buses plus. Shucks, the buses could be schoolkids on a tour.
If there are buses, a letter writing campaign and repeated knocks on the doors of the citizens’ district legislators, then you are getting closer to lobbying and what the state should be worried about and should restrict.
This is why I don’t socialize with state officials. At any lunch either its everybody pays for him or herself or I have to fill out a statement about the value of the meal I paid for the bench-warmer. Lawyers regularly get caught up into the lobbying restrictions.
The problem starts when there is a history of lobbying abuses. The standard is if there is a “compelling state interest” in making the law and if it is the “least restrictive method” of achieving that aim. That compelling interest has to be a legitimate interest, also.When does petitioning the government end and lobbying begin? I’m not sure there’s much difference.
I’m not sure why the state should be “worried” about buses, letters, or door knocks or why they would seek to restrict it?
Maybe I’m not following what you’re saying here, but I question why the state has any role in restricting any private group’s right to assemble, discuss, or petition the authorities.
I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for the ACLU to weigh in. I’m sure if this was NARAL the briefs would already be filed.The problem starts when there is a history of lobbying abuses. The standard is if there is a “compelling state interest” in making the law and if it is the “least restrictive method” of achieving that aim. That compelling interest has to be a legitimate interest, also.
There are entire lawbooks on this subject. My feeling is that the ACLU is going to hang Connecticut out to dry on this one.
Agreed. Your analysis was spot on here.The law is unconstitutional in the way the state is enforcing it. That’s the gist of the story.
Basically, any law which may impede a constitutional right must involve an important state interest and be the lightest restriction (and most effective) to achieve that goal. If the state wants to protect the ethics of its lawmakers from being seduced by lobbyists, worrying about folks arriving at the capitol in buses ain’t the way to go about it. The state needs to show buses plus. Shucks, the buses could be schoolkids on a tour.
I disagree.My feeling is that the ACLU is going to hang Connecticut out to dry on this one.
The problem with lobbying is who are the lobbyists representing? I’m sure there are a lot of cases of big corporations paying big money to get politicians to shut down just laws, while ordinary folks can’t even get the politicians to listen to their concerns.I’ve long been concerned the the demonization of “lobbyists” threatened the constitutionally protected right of petition. This case seems to lend credence to that concern. There certainly needs to be some degree of order in how citizens (or their representatives) communicate with their representatives, but when it becomes a means to insulate government officials from the citizens then we lose another component of our liberty.
The problem isn’t lobbyists themselves as much as the lack of accountability by the politicians they seek to influence.
I don’t think it’s a problem of who the lobbyists are representing at all. We may not agree with the message people want to send to the government, but they still have the right to send it. The problem isn’t that corporations want influence, it’s that politicians make themselves available to those willing to write checks. If we held our politicians accountable for their positions rather than re-electing them at a rate of 95%, then maybe there could be some changes to the process.The problem with lobbying is who are the lobbyists representing? I’m sure there are a lot of cases of big corporations paying big money to get politicians to shut down just laws, while ordinary folks can’t even get the politicians to listen to their concerns.
Politicians are supposed to represent people. The Constitution doesn’t start with the words “We the Corporations…” This is what happens when certain persons (corporations) are more equal than others (people)