Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h71D0a727070; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3F2A6382.1000702@georgetown.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Albert Wat <ayw@georgetown.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1209] Re: definition of lobbyingColleagues, X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 2141 Lines: 62 Here's a resource the might shed some light on the matter... http://www.clpi.org/legal_defs.html Albert Wat, Program Director DC Schools Project Office of Volunteer & Public Service - Center for Social Justice Georgetown University, Poulton Hall 1421 37th St., NW, 1st Floor Washington, DC 20057 Tel: (202)687-8868 Fax: (202)687-8980 https://data.georgetown.edu/outreach/csj/service/programs/dcsp/ George E. Demetrion wrote: >Colleagues: > >A while back, there was some discussion about the illegitimacy of >utilizing the NIFL airwaves for purposes of lobbying. Unfortunately, the >definition and parameters of what lobbying consists of remains vague. > >As I understand it, the lobbying issue is based on the Hatch Act. I >could be wrong about that, and if so, I would like to be corrected. > >However, as I understand the Hatch Act, it principally prohibits use of >federal funds for advocacy related to political elections. > >I scanned the Hatch Act once, some time ago, and didn't see any reference >to advocacy in support or against specific legislation. It may be there >and if so, I'd like to be informed. Even if it is not, one might draw a >reasonable inference (from a loose rather than tight construction of the >law) that such advocacy for or against legislation violates the sprit of >the Hatch Act. But even there, unless it is specifically in the Act, >that would be an assumption that would need vigorous public discussion >than simply assumed. > >In any event, when one gets to the point of analogizing US foreign policy >(and foreign policy is almost always linked to domestic policy, and that >is the point), unless I'm reading it wrong, it is a very large stretch to >prohibit such discussions based on the mandate against lobbying. > >Now, perhaps that specific case can be made, but if so, we have not heard >it here or claimed as NIFL-based policy. What we have is a general >mandate against lobbying, but a very vague definition of what lobbing is >and the basis upon which it is prohibited. > >The mandates of civic literacy require clarification on this matter. > >George Demetrion > > > --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:18:11 EST