Soviet Style Information Control…In the American Congress!

By Nichole Hungerford

You may have already heard some scuttlebutt about this.  Thanks to Smart Girl Elizabeth Henson for bringing this to everyone’s attention.  Yesterday, Republican Congressman from Texas, John Carter, addressed the Congress on serious censorship and information control by Democrats and the House Franking Commission.  The Franking Commission is a bipartisan committee consisting of three Democrats and three Republicans which regulates the Congressional “Franking Privilege,” or the communication of Representatives to their constituents which the government pays for.  Several incidents have involved disturbing restriction on Republican communication with their constituents, including flat out rejecting to distribute certain information.

“Th[is] is the beginning of tyranny, and it is something we should all be very concerned about, and that is when a political group starts to step on the free speech rights of others in this Nation,” said Carter.  He proceeded to recount his and his colleague’s experiences on this issue:

“[The Commission] just basically d[oesn’t] think you should be using the government’s money for politics. But they have never in the history of the Republic taken the position you don’t have the right to express your opinion on the policies that are being proposed, or that you must reword the policies to suit the language of someone else.”

He went on to explain, “We made a telephone townhall recording submission to the Franking Commission in which I proposed to say the Democratic Party is offering their government-run health care program in the next 2 weeks, and this is what we are going to talk about tonight. The Franking Commission came back and told me I could not say ‘government-run health care’ and I could not say `the Democratic Party.’ I had to say the ‘majority party’ is submitting its public option health care program…In other words, what they are telling me is I have to use the same language that the President of the United States uses in his speech, or that Nancy Pelosi uses when Nancy Pelosi talks about this `public option,’ which they have done polls to discover that ‘public option’ sounds better than `government-run health care.’”

He noted that his terminology is hardly a misrepresentation of the situation, “It is not like they are going to contract out, subcontract to insurance companies to put together a policy. No. The United States Government is going to offer a health care plan for the American public and it is going to be run by the Federal Government….I felt like they were telling me what I had to say. I had to use someone else’s words to describe something that I wanted to describe.”

In fact, there are a host of examples of other such disgraceful restrictions, “[Rep.] Kevin Brady prepared this chart. And what this chart is, is Mr. Brady’s interpretation of all of the entities that exist or that are being created by this plan that is put together by the Democrats…. Mr. Brady was told that he could not mail this to his constituents. He asked why, and they said it is not true. And he said…’Point to me one entity that is not in the bill, one, just one, and I will pull it down.’

But, of course, “No one could point to any entity that is not contained in the bill. Everything that is seen on this chart is contained in the bill. But the point of this was they were trying to curtail Mr. Brady’s freedom to express himself, his freedom of speech in this body.”

Some examples demonstrate clear hypocrisy, as Carter continued to explain, “Congressman Joe Barton used the words ‘Democratic majority’ in his newsletter. The Franking Commission kicked it out and said he had to use “congressional majority.” But in Nancy Pelosi’s newsletter in 2006 when she was in the minority, you find this statement: ‘But too many here and across our Nation are paying the price for the Republican congressional majority’s special interest agenda.”

He went on to cite, “A Florida colleague submitted a franking review for the week of July 13th that said, This bill imposes a new payroll tax on employers who do not provide their employees with insurance. The Democrats demanded it be changed to read, ‘In my opinion, this bill imposes a new payroll tax on employers who do not provide the employees with insurance.’  The problem is, it is not an opinion; it is a fact. It was pointed out to them on page 150 of their own bill. It says specifically the language that was quoted by a colleague from Florida.”

In another instance Democrats deleted a very damning quote taken verbatim from Obama on end-of-life care (which bears repeating here):  “Look, the first thing of all is to understand that we actually have some choices to make about how we want to deal with our end-of-life care. We as a culture, as a society, can start to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that you know what–maybe it isn’t going to help. Maybe you are better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.”  Obama’s elusive position on denying treatment to the elderly for cost savings has generated significant controversy in recent weeks and Representative Calvert of California (another Republican, surprise, surprise) was forced to remove this from a newsletter.

Legitimate regulation of congressional “franking,” as it’s called, which is the only basis the Commission has to reject anything Representatives wish to send to their constituents, is outlined in the lengthy “Franking Manuel .”  Mostly, it has to do with making sure it is used only for official business and not something like, say, mailing Christmas cards. Here are the specific regulations (the only ones I found) on the “frank privilege:”

Pg. 54:  Mail matter that is “frankable” includes the usual and customary congressional newsletter or press release which may deal with such matters as the impact of laws and decisions on state and local governments and individual citizens; reports on public and offical actions taken by Members of Congress; and discussion of proposed or pending legislation or governmental actions and the positions of the Members of Congress on, and arguments for or against, such matters.

Pg. 7: Mail matters should avoid excessive use of party labels; comments critical of policy or legislation should not be partisan, politicized or personalized.

Oh, what I wouldn’t give to see a couple of Nancy Pelosi’s newsletters during the height of the Iraq War!  Now, none of the examples Congressman Carter cited seem inappropriate given these parameters, and even if the argument can be made that this is legitimate regulation, do we really want an “Information Commission” controlling what a Representative may tell their constituents on what is going on in Washington?  Having reasonable boundaries is one thing—we don’t want politicians to lie, for instance—but clearly, the current commission has been abusing their authority with blatant censorship of information.  It also raises the question that if this is a Democratic attempt at information control, why are Republicans on the Commission being so complicit?

Chairwoman for the commission is Susan Davis (D-CA) and she can be reached at (202) 225-2040 or by email HERE , but be sure to use the following zip code: 92105.  The other two Democrats on the commission are Donna Edwards (MD-04) and Brad Sherman (CA-27) and the  three Republicans are Dan Lungren (CA-03), Kevin McCarthy (CA-22) and Tom Price (GA-06).  Maybe you will be able to derive some answers from the esteemed Ministry of Information.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Franking Commission Digs Own Grave (themoderatevoice.com)
• Lincoln’s Republicans: A Party of Big Activist Government (themoderatevoice.com)
• Cbo Now Approves of Obama’s Healthcare Reform… (unbiasedtruth.net)
• A Brief History of Blue Dog Democrats (time.com)
• GOP Not Allowed to Say ‘Government-Run Healthcare” (dequalss.com)
• Keeping the heat on Know-Nothing Nan & the Dem corruptocrats (michellemalkin.com)

Popularity: 1% [?]