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 h74FBf718794; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:11:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:11:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <009901c35a9a$78bcac00$3f07f843@preferreduser> 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: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king@verizon.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1212] Re: definition of lobbyingColleagues, X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2137 Lines: 51 Colleagues: I agree with George--and this discussion about advocacy is foundational to every other concern and should not just "go away." Catherine King ----- Original Message ----- From: George E. Demetrion <sophocles5@juno.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 5:40 AM Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1208] definition of lobbyingColleagues, > 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