White House Moves to Restrict Criticism of Stimulus Projects

Lovers of freedom and the Constitution look alive! The First Amendment has sustained yet another assault. Click on the title to get the details and it would behoove you to read it carefully. Mark Tapscott, the author states that "the key passage is the reference to expanding regulation from registered lobbyists to "anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program." I agree with Mr Tapscott when he says that when the government allows restriction of politcal expression in one small specialized area, eventually that area will expand to the point where "all political expression regarding all policy will become subject to government regulation." Regardless of how you feel about lobbyists and special interest groups, there is no doubt that restricting their speech is a flagrant violation of First Amendment rights. This is unacceptable and should be challenged at all levels.

Although I agree with Mr Tapscott that this is a key passage, I found another key, and maybe even more ominous, passage in Mr Eisen's blog as well. Mr Eisen states that "following the OMB's review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interest and more focused on merits-based decision making." First of all, what exactly do they mean by merits-based decision making? Where are the parameters for the decision making process? Who exactly will make the decision? What rules should petitioners follow to make sure their requests are in compliance? There are no answers to these questions in Mr Eisen's blog, leaving one to assume that either they have critera written down somewhere that they have no intention of ever revealing or that they will simply do whatever Mr Obama wants at the time. Either way it is dangerous. Carter Wood from Shopfloor writes in his update to this article that "the restrictions are ambiguous enough that a lobbyist or other petitioner won't be sure how to fully comply. So if someone runs afoul of White House officials, a phone call to a news outlet or a friendly prosecutor can punish the offender. Ambiguous rules plus capricious application equals negative rule of law." A dangerous, slippery slope indeed.

To me this is a classic example of how tyranny starts, in subtle ways and in areas small enough not to be noticed right away. The rules and policies are ambiguous on purpose, usually written in broad pretty language so as to distract people from seeing their true intent. This government is counting on us not paying attention to what is really going on. We must stay aware and vigilant because once tyranny starts it spreads quickly. It is up to us to recognize it and stop it. Read the article, and then contact your reps to insist for an accounting of the administration's merit decision making process concerning stimulus projects.