Another attempt at silencing the Catholic Church, or any who might oppose state government plans in future, was undertaken by the State of Connecticut when it investigated the Church’s opposition to Raised Bill 1098 back in March. Because 4,000 people, many Catholics, assembled in protest, Connecticut says the Church failed to register as a lobbyist organization, and could be fined and subject to criminal charges.

Raised Bill 1098 was introduced by advocates of same-sex marriage in the Connecticut legislature and was aimed at only the Catholic Church’s financial governing methods. It mandated that priest and bishops be removed from financial oversight, and that local laypersons and government officials would replace them with authority in financial matters. It was promptly removed from the docket under pressure from the public, with local Bishop William Lori encouraging efforts to verbally oppose the unconstitutional bill.

In a not very subtle retaliatory attempt just six weeks later, the Connecticut State Ethics Board “investigated” the public assembly and decided that because 4,000 attended a rally, costing $2,000, plus the encouragement for communicating tens of thousands of opposing phone calls and emails to state legislators that killed the bill, the Catholic Church engaged in lobbying and must be regulated and fined if they do not register as lobbyists.

In response to Connecticut’s letter of complaint, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport has filed a federal lawsuit against two state ethics officials — Thomas Jones and Carol Carson — contending that the diocese was compelled to “oppose unconstitutional legislation that struck at its right of religious self-governance.”

The Diocese of Bridgeport’s lawsuit says the Connecticut Office of State Ethics (OSE) officials:

are applying Connecticut’s lobbying statute (1) to penalize the Plaintiff [Diocese of Bridgeport] for failing to register as a lobbyist before participating in a rally and making statements on its website urging its member to oppose legislation in the Connecticut General Assembly, and (2) to force the Plaintiff to register as a lobbyist, file periodic reports of its expenditures, and submit to ongoing audits by the Defendants [OSE] as a result of its participation in the rally and the statements on its website.’

Defendants’ extension of the Connecticut lobbying statute to these basic communicative activities — none of which involved traditional lobbying and all of which the Plaintiff undertook to oppose unconstitutional legislation that struck at its right of religious self-governance — would impose on the Plaintiff fines, substantial burdens, and intrusive state oversight. Defendants’ application of the state lobbying laws is pressuring the Plaintiff, which from time to time is compelled by its faith to take stands on legislation, to tailor its communications and scale back its religious mission to avoid being treated as a “lobbyist.” The Plaintiff asks that this Court enjoin the Defendants’ unconstitutional application of the Connecticut lobbying statute.

The practice of lobbying has always been protected by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, but over time has come to be regulated and codified, when certain criteria are met. For example in 1954 the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Harriss that only paid lobbyists who spend at least half of their time lobbying, and who directly communicate with members of Congress on pending or proposed federal legislation need to register and be regulated. If they communicate with congressional staff members, then no lobbying has taken place.

Since 1995 individuals who receive at least $5,000 in a six-month period from one client are required to register as a lobbyist; organizations who spend $20,000 or more in a six-month period must do the same. All registered must disclose their contact lists and financial records. Connecticut may have slightly different criteria for its lobbyists, but the principles are the same.

Therefore, the application of the lobbying statute on the rights of the people to freely assembly, criticize and oppose legislation, or express their support of certain moral issues seems incredibly illogical. Except if one examines the real goal. Even though it is a direct violation of the First Amendment in the areas of religion, speech, assembly, and petition, it can only be assessed as a concerted but veiled effort to regulate, muzzle, and ultimately silence all Christians, especially on issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.

This unconstitutional application if left to stand as a precedent would expose each and every individual and organization, secular or religious, website or grass-roots activist group who assemble, disccus or sends out email alerts on legislation to regulation, fines, and silence because they are not registered lobbyists.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

	Know what? This nation is finished. It's just a matter of time before she completely collapses. I sure hope my illness takes me soon.
	report abuse vote down vote up

June 05, 2009
Votes: +0

Beacon said:

... States are not, and cannot be, authorized to enact "laws" and/or regulations in direct opposition to the U. S. Constitution. Whereas, this CT regulation does just that, it should be judged as void ab initio. There are many more across the U. S. that should be discarded for that very reason, but the problem lies in getting the courts to recognize and rule in this fashion. It seems to be the tendency of the people's courts to incrementally move in the direction of legislating and re-writing the Constitution, instead of their duty to uphold the (Supreme) Law as written.

report abuse vote down vote up

June 06, 2009
Votes: +0