The two pillars of representative democracy are free and open elections and free and open debate. Every schoolchild is taught not only that the Bill of Rights enshrines citizens’ rights to speech, association and petition, but that America is great because citizens speak out on issues of public concern and bring their arguments directly to politicians.
Many readers likely recall the classic 1975 “Schoolhouse Rock!” segment on how a bill becomes a law (“I’m Just a Bill”), in which legislation requiring school buses to stop at railroad crossings starts with “just an idea” until some “folks back home” decide they want a law passed and contact their congressman. But today, should you decide to exercise your rights as an American with only civics lessons and the Bill of Rights as your guide, beware.
Nowadays, you need more than just the courage of your convictions and a soapbox to speak out on matters of public importance; you need a good lawyer, too. Just ask Bishop Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut:
In March 2009, state legislators in Connecticut tried to rush through a bill that was widely recognized as a blatant act of retribution against the Roman Catholic Church. The Bridgeport Diocese had previously been successful in fighting for a conscience-protection amendment to gay marriage legislation. Elected officials responded with Raised Bill 1098. This legislation would require lay people to govern corporations that own church property, which would effectively strip Catholic bishops and pastors of control over Church finances.
The bill was introduced without notice and placed on the legislative fast-track. But state legislators underestimated the Most Reverend William Lori, the blogging bishop of Bridgeport. Lori used his website to inform the faithful and send out a call to action.
On just four days’ notice, the Bridgeport Diocese arranged for buses to take parishioners to a hastily scheduled hearing at the state Capitol in Hartford. The subsequent flood of phone calls and e-mails, along with the prospect of an overflowing and hostile crowd led legislators to cancel the hearing and abandon the bill (although the rally went on as planned with the crowd estimated at more than 3,500 people).
Six weeks after the rally, the Office of State Ethics (OSE) informed the Bridgeport Diocese that it may have violated state lobbying regulations. Connecticut law defines lobbying as communicating or soliciting others to communicate with any public official, or their staff, for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. The next week, the OSE threatened the church with a formal complaint and multiple fines of $10,000 each.
That’s when the Diocese brought a federal lawsuit, which in turn prompted the Connecticut Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, to tell the Office of State Ethics to back off. Unfortunately, Blumenthal did not issue a formal advisory opinion, which might have offered some protection to future grassroots efforts, and his letter to the OSE made clear that he still supports strict regulation of grassroots lobbying, even for churches communicating to their members.
For his part, the Reverend Lori was gracious and turned the other cheek. He promptly posted a note on his blog thanking the Attorney General, and even praised Blumenthal:
“His opinion is a truly significant announcement that stands not just with our State’s Catholics but with all citizens of the State whose fundamental civil liberties were placed in jeopardy by the application by the OSE of the State’s lobbying registration requirements. It is essential that citizens have the right to organize and communicate their views to their government without being required to register as lobbyists.”
It’s tempting to view this as a happy ending, but this abuse of power was stopped only because regulators made the mistake of picking on a powerful group; most political entrepreneurs do not have the resources of the Catholic Church backing them up. No one was fired or placed on administrative leave. The law hasn’t been repealed. The only lesson learned by regulators is that next time they should harass a more hapless opponent.
This vignette nicely illustrates one of the central points of “Mowing Down the Grassroots,” a report that I recently authored for the Institute for Justice: Overbroad lobbying laws in the states raise the costs of political activity and set legal traps for unsuspecting citizens.
It’s my honor to be guest blogging this week. I’ll be discussing the topic of grassroots lobbying and some of the findings from my related research. However, I’m not a lawyer, just a social scientist, so please temper your expectations accordingly (since we all know that when used as a modifier, “social” means “not”; e.g., social justice, social security, social worker, etc.).
Correction: As noted in the comments, it’s Raised Bill 1098, not 1089 as originally written.
Terrivus says:
Looking forward to it, especially after this intriguing opening post.
But your closing parenthetical is puzzling to me. You write, “we all know that when used as a modifier, ‘social’ means ‘not’; e.g., social justice, social security, social worker, etc.” What exactly do you mean by this? Social justice is not justice? (And if that is what you mean, it’s an odd statement in a post about the Catholic Church.) Social workers are not workers?
Or do you mean to say that “social security” does not really provide security, social workers do not really better society, calls for “social justice” usually end up not providing that much justice, etc.?
Your wording was rather confusing and would benefit from a clarification. Thanks.
June 21, 2010, 1:53 pmChris Travers says:
Is there any way we could get a reference to the law in question? I’m interested as to whether this is enforced just against unpopular groups, or whether, say, the Friends Committee for National Legislation would be banned from all sorts of activities.
June 21, 2010, 2:08 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Which requirements? Perhaps they were eminently reasonable ones that the BD could have satisfied in 15 minutes? Perhaps they were truly onerous? Perhaps the OSE did have a prima facie complaint that the BD did violate those requirements? Perhaps the BD’s activities were obviously exempted from those requirements?
The reader has no way to discern the actual merit of the OSE’s complaint — it may very well have been utterly without merit, I’m not at all discounting that possibility, but you have given us nothing by which to judge their complaint. This post is all heat and no light.
June 21, 2010, 2:12 pmdearieme says:
IANASS
June 21, 2010, 2:18 pmVirginian says:
Unlike some humor-challenged commentors, I got a kick out of this. Thanks for the laugh.
June 21, 2010, 2:22 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Hmm. How could one find out the answer?
And now that I’m done snarking, the Diocese’s lawsuit, with the OSE’s letter attached as an exhibit, is here.
June 21, 2010, 2:22 pmShelbyC says:
I found this using google, if it helps…
June 21, 2010, 2:24 pmBZ says:
Me too.
And I understand your point about tempering expectations. Despite my earlier comment on the introduction thread, I am looking forward to what you say here; I’m hoping you add to, rather than just quote from, your excellent article.
June 21, 2010, 2:25 pmanon says:
When we start forcing people who merely want to publicly advocate about a political issue to jump through regulatory hoops, precisely which regulations are “eminently reasonable”?
June 21, 2010, 2:27 pmADF Alliance Alert » Tocqueville Meets the Speech Police says:
[...] Milyo has this post at the Volokh Conspiracy discussing legislative and administrative efforts to bully the Catholic Church in [...]
June 21, 2010, 2:29 pmd-berg says:
Don’t be so silly. First amendment protects pornography, not political expression.
June 21, 2010, 2:31 pmChris Travers says:
And it certainly doesn’t include a right to petition government…..
June 21, 2010, 2:46 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Hey, Jeff
Welcome. How’s your defense of ACORN against right-wing nanny-staters coming along? Eager for a report.
Cheers.
June 21, 2010, 3:09 pmLou Gots says:
Re: the bill seeking to laicize Church property. see, Kedroff vs. St Nicholas Cathedral http://supreme.justia.com/us/344/94/
STFU, piggies.
Re: state “lobbying” regulations. see, Citizens United (we all know that one), and Emily’s List. More STFU, piggies.
See how they try to muzzle political speech by calling it “lobbying.”
June 21, 2010, 3:09 pmptt says:
Lower expectations aside, the Raised Bill in question is 1098, not 1089. Google at will!
What you’ll find is a remarkably different version of the bill, the motivation, the timing, and the participants.
But, as the author noted, we are dealing with “social science” perspectives in this thread, so fidelity to actual events is uh…. optional.
June 21, 2010, 3:11 pmDave N. says:
Never mind the lawsuit. How did you do that with your first link? I thought it was kind of cool.
June 21, 2010, 3:13 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
I wish I could take credit, but you’ll have to credit the folks at lmgtfy.com (“Let Me Google That For You”) Give them a search term and they’ll give you a URL.
June 21, 2010, 3:23 pmCatCube says:
Go to http://www.lmgtfy.com (let me Google that for you) and follow the instructions.
June 21, 2010, 3:28 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Let’s start with a one page disclosure form stating whether or not they are or supported by agents of a foreign government.
June 21, 2010, 3:29 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
I have to wonder what effect a few determined federal prosecutions under 18USC242 (Denial of Rights Under Color of Law) would have on situations like this, though. Admittedly, the thought of such prosecutions is ludicrous, since they’d involve using a law meant to punish officials for violating constitutional rights for the very different purpose of punishing officials for violating constitutional rights. Still, one wonders.
June 21, 2010, 3:32 pmalkali says:
In 2006, a priest in the Bridgeport Diocese had been accused of stealing $1.4 million from his parish. The bill (1098, not 1089) was introduced by two state legislators at the request of members of that parish.
Did the legislators introduce that bill as retaliation against the Bridgeport Diocese for the conscience protection amendment?
By 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court had ruled that gay marriage is legal in Connecticut. There was a “clean up” law passed in 2009 to make the state’s marriage laws gender-neutral, and that law included an amendment stating that religious organizations did not have to honor same sex marriages. Both of these legislators are openly gay, and opposed that amendment, but both voted for the proposed law as amended. The church opposed the law, and it is unclear to me what if anything the church had to do with the amendment. (To be sure, it would not have been logically inconsistent for the church to oppose the law but favor the amendment, but it’s unclear to me whether the church actually pressed for the amendment.)
June 21, 2010, 3:38 pmDilan Esper says:
In March 2009, state legislators in Connecticut tried to rush through a bill that was widely recognized as a blatant act of retribution against the Roman Catholic Church. The Bridgeport Diocese had previously been successful in fighting for a conscience-protection amendment to gay marriage legislation. Elected officials responded with Raised Bill 1089. This legislation would require lay people to govern corporations that own church property, which would effectively strip Catholic bishops and pastors of control over Church finances.
This does seem outrageous. If you want to take revenge against the Church for their homophobic positions on social issues in a legitimate fashion, a much better way to do it would be to enact a really long statute of limitations reviving claims for aiding and abetting sexual abuse. Or create a really flexible alter ego doctrine for hierarchically structured religious organizations that would allow sex abuse victims in other jurisdictions to attach Church property in Connecticut.
June 21, 2010, 3:47 pmS says:
Well, Milyo didn’t say he was an historian. Rather, it looks like he is a partisan creating “social science” and “history” to support his politics.
June 21, 2010, 3:52 pmzuch says:
With that, I’m not quite sure I’d ever want to take a class from you. And why would I, given your admissions above?
Cheers,
June 21, 2010, 4:00 pmOrenWithAnE says:
You would have to somehow make the letter a denial of the BD’s rights. Even if you can jump through that hoop, I wouldn’t bet on your ability to corral a jury through it.
June 21, 2010, 4:12 pmShelbyC says:
Why? Because they haven’t suggested cutting off funding for the catholic church?
June 21, 2010, 4:45 pmShelbyC says:
Geez. Who wants sombody with no sense of humor in their class. :-)
June 21, 2010, 4:54 pmmischief says:
As long as it’s facially neutral. . . .
(tehehehehehe — that would never get through, you see. The US government as part of No Child Left Behind surveyed the children — and found that nearly ten percentage of public school students have been molested by school employees. Imagine paying for that.)
June 21, 2010, 5:18 pmptt says:
Any chance we’ll get “corrections” as to the substance of the post?
By the way, the error appears in the report you’re flogging, too. (Or it did earlier. Now the server seems unable to deliver the PDF — a correction in progress perhaps???)
June 21, 2010, 5:21 pmleo marvin says:
Yeah, the “social” quip was cute, but getting the joke and getting the point aren’t mutually exclusive. Ann Coulter makes me laugh too. That doesn’t mean her political bigotry is lost on me.
June 21, 2010, 5:39 pmShelbyC says:
Well, the last thing Ann Coulter is is self-deprecating. Isn’t it OK to make fun of social scientists if you’re a social scientist?
June 21, 2010, 6:04 pmlgm says:
Unless someone counters the comment by alkali, we have to assume he’s right, and the Milyo post is (as usual for the Cato Institute) wrong.
Also, I wonder whether Bishop Lori’s efforts put the Catholic organization he represents in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Tax exempt organizations are forbidden to engage in some kinds of political activity.
June 21, 2010, 6:15 pmSlippery Slope says:
You say that “the Bridgeport Diocese arranged for buses to take parishioners to a hastily scheduled hearing at the state Capitol in Hartford” and that about 3500 showed up.
How much did the Diocese spend? A roundtrip bus ride from Hartford to Bridgeport on Greyhound costs $34 per person. A charter bus can be rented for about $600-1500 for day and holds 50 people. So if there were hundreds of people bussed from Bridgeport to Hartford, that thousands of dollars expended by the Diocese in order to influence legislation.
Why shouldn’t the Diocese have to disclose that?
June 21, 2010, 6:16 pmwhit says:
there is no way they could have found that by surveying the children. they may have found that 10% CLAIMED that they had been molested. allegations, even those in a SURVEY are not necessarily truthful
hth
June 21, 2010, 6:23 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Actually, “we” don’t have to assume that a random commenter’s evidence-free claims are right.
Nor would said claims be relevant to the point in any case; the legislators’ motive(s) behind the blatantly unconstitutional bill has nothing to do with the lobbying issue.
June 21, 2010, 6:29 pmMatthewM says:
Slippery Slope,
Because it’s nobody’s business. Because such disclosure chills and punishes the right to assemble. And finally, because disclosure will create a “Slippery Slope” (you should know that) to more intrusive speech-destroying regulation.
June 21, 2010, 6:32 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Why should it?
(Also, that hardly captures the entire issue, as you can see if you read the complaint the diocese filed.)
June 21, 2010, 6:32 pmleo marvin says:
The author’s deprecation of social sciences by reference to “social justice,” “social security” and “social workers” is clearly aimed at the left. That leaves him safely out of harm’s way. When the Conspirators criticize liberal bias in academia, do you think they’re talking about themselves?
June 21, 2010, 6:38 pmSlippery Slope says:
Perhaps it is not the entire issue from the Diocese’s perspective, but it is part of the issue and was the basis for the State’s inquiry.
If you look at paragraph 37 of the complaint, it was the expenditure of funds for the bus that pushed the Diocese within the arguable scope of the disclosure requirement.
Just speaking at the rally, just speaking at churches, just putting things on the website — none of those were actionable. Paying people to attend the rally — that’s what triggered a potential disclosure (not regulatory) requirement.
The Diocese should have to disclose it (just like a corporation or union or George Soros) so that the legislatures and public understand whether this is rally of people who actualy care or a rally of people who are paid to care. The source of the message helps people understand the authenticity of the message.
June 21, 2010, 7:02 pmShelbyC says:
But how’s the Diocese supposed to know what it has to disclose? Should we all STFU until we can pay for lawyers to tell us what regulations apply to us when we engage in political speech? Isn’t that the point of the post?
June 21, 2010, 7:37 pmzuch says:
He was “mak[ing] fun” of “social justice, social security, social worker, etc.”
Cheers,
June 21, 2010, 8:37 pmlgm says:
If the random commenter were factually wrong, someone would dispute
him/her. Notice that nobody has. It’s not proof, but it’s a preponderance of evidence. Our legal system relies on adversarial fact checking like this.
The original post has no more evidence than the random commenter. And the original post is from the Cato Institute, which makes it less reliable than a random commenter on VC.
June 21, 2010, 8:57 pmSocially Speaking » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog says:
[...] at the end of this post, about Connecticut’s attempt to fine Catholic protesters for not being registered as [...]
June 21, 2010, 9:04 pmslippery slope says:
If that’s the point (and honestly it’s not clear to me that there was a dominant point), then the Diocese, with its $100 million in assets (see http://www.bridgeportdiocese.com/folder_bridgedocs/Eisner%20LLP%20RCDB.pdf), is hardly the poster child for overregulation of the “little guys.”
Second, the question isn’t engaging in speech alone — it is spending money — more that $2000 in a calendar year.
And yes, I suppose that I think it’s reasonable that organizations or individuals who spend $2000 or more a year lobbying the legislature know that the law requires disclosure of how they are spending money to influence legislation. Just as they would need to disclose if they gave the money directly to the candidates/officials.
June 21, 2010, 9:16 pmShelbyC says:
Doesn’t the OP dispute random commenter? I thought that was the whole issue. Of course, I’m not sure any of us have any idea what the motives of the legislature were, to the extent such is knowable. And the OP, at one point, qualifies its suppostion with “…a bill that was widely recognized as a blatant act of retribution…”
June 21, 2010, 9:23 pmShelbyC says:
Fair ’nuff. But aren’t you the last guy who should be jumping on somebody for making fun of opposing viewpoints?
June 21, 2010, 9:26 pmfalse seriousness says:
Yeah, Milyo is definitely a “social” scientist.
He can’t even articulate the opposing view; he just launches into full scale whine like everyone automatically agrees with him.
June 21, 2010, 10:00 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Ouch. That one left a mark, even over the Intertubes. Any refutation or at least rebuttal?
June 21, 2010, 10:03 pmfalse seriousness says:
That would require intellectual honesty from Milyo. Otherwise, good point.
June 21, 2010, 10:12 pmGrover Gardner says:
Aren’t lay people members of the church? How does this strip the church of control over its finances? Voice of the Faithful has been pushing for this for some time now. In CT there have been two prominent cases of massive theft by priests in recent years–Fathers Fay and Moynihan. It’s not uncommon by any means. Why shouldn’t lay members be entitled to protect their funds and property?
June 21, 2010, 11:45 pmCornellian says:
led legislators to cancel the hearing and abandon the bill
Thus sparing us all the delightful irony of watching the good bishop argue that law was invalid because, although facially neutral, it was really designed to harm a politically unpopular group.
June 22, 2010, 2:14 amCornellian says:
the Most Reverend William Lori, the blogging bishop of Bridgeport.
Isn’t a Catholic Bishop “His Excellency?” I’ve never heard of one being addressed as “Most Reverend.”
June 22, 2010, 2:18 amChris W says:
So would spending more than $2,000 on a nice computer and a year’s worth of internet fees to run a political commentary blog qualify as lobbying?
Also, some churches already own buses – if such a church needed to spend over $2,000 per year for insurance, gas, repairs, etc, would using the bus in this manner trigger lobbying restrictions?
June 22, 2010, 3:38 amlargo says:
Zuch,
Do you take him as having written this tongue in cheek? And if you do, what do you take his admission to be?
(Of course if you are being dryly — very dryly — tongue in cheek yourself, please tell me, for the intent went a great deal over my head.)
Cheers,
June 22, 2010, 5:16 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Is “member of the church” a legal term? To the extent it is, no, they aren’t. They’re worshippers at the church, which is not a legal position.
Let’s see: if Connecticut passes a law saying that I get a vote on whether you can withdraw money from your bank account, would you consider that to be stripping control from you over your bank account?
Because it isn’t their funds or property; it’s the Church’s.
June 22, 2010, 7:08 amOrenWithAnE says:
Because it is not theirs, it is property of the BD.
If they want, they can agitate for reform of the internal structure of the Church. They can withhold their donations until the Church implements them. They can even leave the Church and found a competing one. What they cannot do is unilaterally change the internal governance of a pre-existing institution.
June 22, 2010, 9:10 amzuch says:
I wasn’t jumping on our esteemed guest blogger. I was making fun of him. Surely you could see that?
Cheers,
June 22, 2010, 6:09 pmmischief says:
giggle
Why they can be false even in the courtroom. Like the man who claimed to have been molested on an overnight trip to New York City and it was proven in court that the trip was a day one — and the priest he accused was not at the parish at the time.
Schools are exactly as entitled to presumption of innocence as the Catholic Church is.
June 22, 2010, 7:37 pmmarc says:
Cornellian, In the United States, a Roman Catholic bishop is commonly styled, the Most Reverend N. C., Bishop of X., and is addressed as ‘Your Excellency’. Customs of other countries vary. (Most Reverend Lord, Reverendissimus Dominus, is the formal Roman style.)
June 22, 2010, 11:59 pmThe Blogging Bishop of Bridgeport | says:
[...] need to read this story over at the Volokh Conspiracy blog. The story is about Bridgeport, Connecticut Bishop William [...]
July 12, 2010, 12:08 pmADF Alliance Alert » Erik Stanley: The Blogging Bishop of Bridgeport says:
[...] Advancing Religious Liberty Blog (via Speak Up Blog)”You need to read this story over at the Volokh Conspiracy blog. The story is about Bridgeport, Connecticut Bishop William Lori, whom some have dubbed the [...]
July 12, 2010, 6:09 pm