Keynote Luncheon:
Right and Left Against the Stream
Moderator:
Larry Pratt
Executive Director, Gun Owners of America and
Co-Chair, Free Speech Coalition Board of Directors
Anthony P. Griffin, Esq.
Adjunct Professor, University of Houston Law Center
The Latest in Membership List Confidentiality
Ralph Reed
Executive Director, Christian Coalition
Mobilizing Grassroots in Face of
Regulation and Other Challenges
LARRY PRATT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA
AND CO-CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FREE SPEECH
COALITION
MR. PRATT: Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. If we could have your attention I'd like to get
our luncheon program underway. Could I invite you to
continue with your lunch and lend an ear as we get started
for this afternoon's program.
I'm Larry Pratt, Executive Director of
Gun Owners of America and also one of the members of the
board of the Free Speech Coalition.
It's a pleasure to be able to bring to
the podium this afternoon Anthony Griffin, who graced us
last year with his presence and is an attorney in private
practice in Houston and also is an adjunct professor at the
University of Houston Law School. He is a former general
counsel of the Texas Civil Liberties Union and also the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
He is a graduate of the University of Houston Law Center and
we are now going to have the opportunity to hear from
Anthony Griffin.
ANTHONY P. GRIFFIN, ESQUIRE
ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON LAW CENTER
MR. GRIFFIN: I was told that I was to
talk about an update on what is going on with membership
lists. I sat during this morning's session and will have to
confess that the speakers who talked this morning about
membership lists did a wonderful job of explaining the
dangers that confront us if we allow our membership lists to
be obtained by the government.
One of the problems I have, though, is --
and I think if I'm going to set a tone -- is that we are
probably one of the most regulated societies in the world
and I know that some of you will probably say that we
represent a true democracy and that America is different.
But we regulate and we run to our government and we complain
about and we're concerned about safety.
We say we want everybody to put a seat
belt on. We want everybody to buckle up and we now allow
people to be stopped if you fail to have your seat belt on
in the name of safety. I know you sit there and you say,
that's some unfair criticism.
Then we get real worried and we want to
regulate the environment in dealing with smoking because
we're concerned about our health and now we have a whole
industry where the next millionaires will be those people
who make the outside comfortable for smokers, where they can
go outside and have comfortable lounge chairs and a pretty
environment and those inventors who understand that because
of our over-regulation of individual citizens, you can
become a millionaire if you recognize the trend.
We regulate motorcycle riders. We
regulate -- and someone mentioned the color of the envelope
that you mail your list out. We do it all under the notion
that we go to our government and we want to complain. We
want you to protect us from ourselves or protect us from
others or to help us against our competition.
The list of states that were mentioned in
terms of the regulation included Montana, Ohio, Hawaii,
Kentucky, Michigan, West Virginia, Indiana, South Carolina,
Florida, New Jersey and I went to the Free Speech
newsletter, the "Free Speech Coalition," July of '94. On
page number 6, there are a number of other states, Virginia,
Illinois, Utah, Pennsylvania. We're covering the country in
terms of the attacks and the attempts to obtain membership
lists.
One of the virtues, I think, of comics
and I think one of the virtues of free speech is that we
can't patent everything in our society and we can't regulate
everything in our society. A joke that was told by a
Hispanic comedian is probably appropriate.
He said he became quite well known. He
was making money and he was traveling all over the country
and bought his first nice, fine car. He bought a BMW. He
said that I bought this car. I went back to visit my folks.
I went to the barrio. I got out of the car. I turned around
and I walked away and said, oh, my God. He said, I turned
around, took a sheet of paper and wrote on the sheet of
paper, no radio and put it on the dashboard. He said, I came
back to my car from visiting my mother. He said, my tires
were flat. My hood was dented. My doors were gone. The
window was broken up and the paper had been turned over and
it says, next time, get one.
(Laughter)
I think that comedian as a sage is
probably correct when we talk about membership lists. What
we tend to assume is, it applies to the other person and it
doesn't apply to us. So, we put no lists, not ours but
theirs. We put, it won't happen to my organization because
my organization is not a threat, not theirs. We put, no
radio and the government says, next time, get one.
I think what that comedian was probably
saying is we have certain assumptions about our society that
is built in. I know that I'm a little bit paranoid in all of
this. My paranoia tells me that in every state in this
country there is some bureaucrat sitting in some
governmental office thinking about a method or a process of
making his office more powerful. That's paranoia on my part,
I admit.
I have this vision that somewhere in this
country, whether it be Texas or Arkansas or New York or Ohio
or some other state there is some person sitting in this
country, sitting back thinking of how he or she can increase
their budget. Now, I know that doesn't exist and I
apologize.
(Laughter)
I have this vision that some bureaucrat
is sitting back thinking about how I can get more press and
make my agency the most noteworthy agency in my state and I
can get the "Washington Post" and the "New York Times" and
the "Houston Chronicle" and the "Dallas Morning News" and
all of the newspapers to love me.
I can give press conferences and I can
get up and I can tell everyone, I am from this agency and we
are doing this for the public good, sort of like motorcycle
helmets, sort of like seat belts, sort of like smoking, sort
of like regulation of envelopes, sort of like taking care of
us.
I know that where I come from that's just
called good old paranoia and it doesn't happen. So, when the
comedian talked about, no radio, I think he was tapping into
that assumption that we exist in and what bureaucrats
oftentimes take advantage of. That if you have nothing to
hide, you have no shame in giving your lists up. If you're
doing everything properly then you will show us your lists
tomorrow. The other assumption that the bureaucrat is very
wonderful and does it quite well and again, I must insult
you to some degree. Not only do our enemies come after our
lists but our friends do, too. They do it under the notion
of making us feel good and protecting us and that this
governmental regulation that we're passing, it really
doesn't affect you, it's really going after the bad
guys.
It really doesn't hurt your organization
because I like your organization and you shouldn't be
concerned because your concern is misplaced and although the
letter of the statute reads one way, you should ignore the
letter of the statute because we like you and we're your
friends and we'll take care of you.
(Laughter)
Now, I call that part of my minority
paranoia. I don't know whether you understand what that
means but growing up as a black youth in America, you
develop a certain degree of paranoia when someone starts
telling you that they're your friends and start stroking
you. You start backing up and start looking, in terms of
where the hand is going. You start wondering, since when,
how come, what do you mean you're my friend?
So, whether it is in the State of Ohio or
the State of Hawaii or the State of New York, I think the
point is made. You need to continue to fight any
governmental regulation that requests your membership
lists.
They'll do it under the notion of
accounting, that it is just an accounting function. They'll
do it under the notion of fees. We're just collecting fees
or they'll do it under the notion that it's some state or
federal agency doing their job for the public good.
I need not tell you, it's happening
around the country. Governmental agencies are going in and
as an example, in the State of Montana there was a -- and
the agency is called the Montana Human Rights
Network.
A hate group got up and gave a speech
talking about the Montana Human Rights Network. The Montana
Human Rights Network files a lawsuit against the hate group
saying, that's libelous. You libeled us. Now, wait a
minute.
I'm sitting here reading this stuff
going, wait, come on, you're a public official. Maybe the
hate group had a bad night that night and something -- and
it was cold in Montana. You know, get a sense of humor about
this.
But then what the agency does, it says,
we're insulted. We're going to sue you for the public good
because you've insulted this state agency and then they turn
around and say, give us your membership lists. Even if you
say, well, I'm not a hate group and I'm different, any time
there is an investigation with respect to just your
accounting records, an official with your membership lists
can clean your clock. Once that list is given, they start
twisting.
Your membership starts disappearing.
They'll stop giving. They'll stop attending and with that
membership list in hand or that donor list in hand, it
becomes the means by which he or she can extract whatever
the government wants from you. Now, I guess that's called my
paranoia, reaching back again.
In Texas, there was a case called Tilden
v. Moyer, where Mr. Tilden was an evangelist and ran a
church and there became a dispute over whether his claims of
healing were accurate claims. A former member filed a
complaint saying, he can't heal anyone. He didn't heal me.
I'm angry.
I contributed to the church and the state
took the citizen's complaint and said, Oh, Mr. Tilden, we
not only want to know who you have healed. We want to know
who you claim to have healed and who supports your claims of
healing the ill. By the way, give us your membership list
and your donor list for your church.
The Texas Supreme Court came down and
said, no, don't do that. Stop, I'm sorry. You can't have his
membership list and you can't have his donor list because
whether it's a religious group or whether it's a hate group
whether it's a non-profit organization, the threat is still
the same.
It is awfully powerful stuff for a
bureaucrat sitting in an office anywhere in this country
thinking about how powerful my agency can become and how
wonderful it will look for my name to be in the paper,
protecting the public good.
Now, I guess there's one other thing. I
think you have to start with humor and I think you have to
end with a little bit of it.
I caught a lot of flack last year for
representing Michael Lowe (phonetic), the Grand Dragon of
the Ku Klux Klan and protecting his membership list. One of
the things that happened in that case is, the Klan called
me, made another call to me and said, Mr. Griffin, we want
to adopt a highway down in Vidor.
(Laughter)
I said, why do you want to adopt a
highway, Michael? Well, we want to pick up trash,
too.
(Laughter)
For those of you who don't understand
white boy, Texas idiom I'll provide translations as I go. We
want to pick up trash, too. He then goes on to say, Mr.
Griffin, I think it's unfair. He feels aggrieved. They won't
let us adopt this highway. He said, it is our First
Amendment privilege. Even the Klan understands the First
Amendment.
I said, Michael, what do you want my
office to do? I want you to represent us. Okay, we'll think
about it. By the time I got off the phone with Michael Lowe,
my Grand Dragon of hate, the "New York Times" called, the
power of the press. It's amazing how wonderful and fast they
work.
I said, well, I'm thinking about
representing them. I haven't decided. I'm going to sit down
and think about it over the weekend. I said, as a matter of
speaking, I'll be honest with you. I think we civil
libertarians and us in the civil rights community need to
develop a sense of humor about all of this and the reporter
said, what do you mean. I said, come on, let those boys have
their right to adopt a highway. What is wrong with having a
sign that
says -- if the Republican women can do
it, then the Klan can have a membership list also.
If you let You Be Free -- there is a sign
in Texas that says: "Here is the next two miles of highway."
You Be Free is a nudist group.
(Laughter)
If You Be Free can get a highway, then
let those boys in sheets adopt a highway.
(Laughter)
The reporter stopped and said, you're not
serious, are you? I said, well, come on, stop. Let's talk
about this for a minute. I said, we need to develop a sense
of humor about all this. He said, I don't understand. I
said, look, let them adopt a highway and then we can get all
our friends and we can go down to Vidor on Sunday. We can
load up our trash and dump it.
(Laughter)
It is the ultimate act of civil
disobedience that you can contribute to your society, to go
to Vidor, Texas -- and we can have tour groups. We can come
from Georgia. We can come from Houston. We can come from
Florida. We can come from New York and we can all go down to
Vidor and we can take pictures and we can just dump trash
and then watch Michael Lowe and his boys pick it up. If he
fails to pick it up, we can complain, because some
bureaucrat, somewhere, in some office is going to support
the claim and take away the license of the Klan to continue
to adopt a portion of the highway.
I think that's what it is about. I think
we need to fight and recognize whether you're a conservative
group or a liberal group or you're far right or far left or
whether you wake up in the morning and you're paranoid when
you take your first step, then you need to understand how
important membership lists are and the right of free speech
is. I thank you for the opportunity.
(Applause)
MR. PRATT: That does it. I'm not adopting
any highways.
Next, we have the opportunity to hear
from the Executive Director of the Christian Coalition,
Ralph Reed.
They have a million members and 872
chapters in every one of the states of the country. Ralph is
a columnist and political analyst and he's appeared on a
number of television shows and consulted with perhaps even
more Congressional campaigns. Among his accomplishments is a
Doctorate that he has in American History from Emery
University. Ralph, would you come forward?
RALPH REED
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHRISTIAN COALITION
MR. REED: Thank you, Larry.
I remember in February of 1993, sitting
in my office one day minding my own business as I am wont to
do and the phone rang and it was a reporter for the
"Washington Post" named Michael Weiskopf (phonetic). Michael
was doing a story on the fact that in the preceding 24
hours, 450,000 phone calls had descended on the U.S. Capitol
switchboard like a sunami of voter anger, out of apparently
nowhere, designed to defeat Bill Clinton's attempt to repeal
the ban on gays in the military.
He said, I understand that Pat Robertson
has flashed the Capitol switchboard number on his television
program and I would be curious to know whether or not you
all had anything to do with this. I said, well, we became
aware of it just like I think everybody else did and
encouraged people to get involved. I don't believe for a
minute that we generated all of those phone calls. I think
just trying to facilitate an opportunity for people to call
and make their voices heard and so forth and so on.
It was one of those conversations with
reporters that probably some of you had where the computer
keyboard is not clicking. He wasn't really taking my
viewpoint. It was pretty apparent that he had already
written a story about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and
others having whipped up this maelstrom of protest which I
believe was primarily spontaneous and probably at least as
much sparked by CSPAN and the networks and CNN as it was by
religious broadcasters.
I gave the example of my father, who is a
career naval officer and served on an aircraft carrier in
Vietnam. He had called his two Senators, Sam Nunn and Paul
Coverdell, for the first time in my life. For the entire
time I grew up in my home, my father never made a phone call
to the Capitol. Yet, here he was doing it. I made the point
that he didn't have either a satellite dish or cable,
because they live out in the country. So, he couldn't have
gotten Pat Robertson and he didn't listen to Rush Limbaugh.
But at any event, that wasn't what he wanted to write. So,
he went on to write a story that sort of became infamous
which was that the "followers of Pat Robertson and Jerry
Falwell" had been driven to their phones like glassy-eyed
drones, because they were "poor, uneducated and easy to
command." This was in a page one news story.
Within about 72 hours, the Washington
Post fax lines were jammed with people faxing their college
diplomas and their 1040 forms to demonstrate that they did,
in fact, have incomes above the national average and did
have professional, advanced and collegiate degrees.
Everybody, of course, knows what happened
as a result of that barrage. The Clinton Administration
backed off. There were hearings and so forth and a different
result came about.
That was my first experience with what I
think is going to be at the center of politics in the 1990s.
That is, a grassroots, high-tech, citizen-oriented protest
that is going to have more impact on this city and it's
proceedings than all the powerful lobbyists on K Street
wearing Armani suits and Gucci shoes. I think it is a
combination of three things. Number one, I think it is a
sort of volcano of voter anger that began probably roughly
in 1990 when Jack Gargeon (phonetic), that entrepreneur from
Florida, began running those ads all over the country called
throw the hypocritical rascals out.
Then he would have an 800 number at the
bottom and an address and the ad made money. More money came
in off the ad than he spent on the ad. That was, of course,
the first year that term limit restrictions passed anywhere
in the country, that year in Oklahoma, California and
Colorado.
I think then, of course, in 1992, you
have the Perot phenomenon and now we're seeing it again in
'94. I think the second thing is a development of
technologies that are transforming our politics, some old,
some new, some coming into a renaissance, like talk radio.
Rush Limbaugh is really a throw- back to the hay day that AM
radio enjoyed in the '30s and '40s and he has sort of
reinvented the medium and personalized it and turned it into
a business, when many people believed that AM radio was
finished as a business forever.
Of course, cable television. In 1980 only
12 percent of America's TVs had cable. Today, that figure is
75 percent. Twelve years ago, only about ten million people
had cable. Today, that figure is about 62 million. So, you
have CNN CSPAN. CSPAN enjoys a daily audience of about two
million viewers, about 92 percent of whom vote. I think that
is the second aspect of this, is this high-tech,
computerized bulletin boards, things like CompuServe,
Internet and so forth, fax machines and all of these various
things.
Then the third thing is, a sort of
seismic shift underneath the plate of American politics that
we saw roughly at the end of every great military
conflagration, in this case, a cold war rather than a hot
war. If you look at the Civil War and how the post-Civil War
economic trauma birthed both the Populist Movement and the
Progressive Move and, I think, to a degree, the Women's
Suffrage movement. After World War I, of course, you get the
Red Scare. You get the rise of the progressive movement
after World War I.
After World War II, you have McCarthyism.
You have the rise of the Klan, which also emerged after
World War I, all these sorts of things. I think we are now
in the first period of a post-cold war politics which
instead of bringing tranquility is, in fact, bringing a
tremendous amount of trauma to our political system. I don't
think that very many people understand how different
politics is going to look by the end of this decade as it
did at the beginning.
I think this town and this government has
a direct personal interest in those politics not bringing
about the changes that they are effectuating. I don't know
how many of you all followed the H.R. 6 battle, the battle
over the education bill which erupted in March. There was a
provision in that bill, a bill that otherwise most members
of Congress supported that required that every teacher in
America whether in a private, public, parochial or home
school be certified by the state to teach the subjects in
which they were engaged in teaching.
Well, there's about 12 million young
people in private and parochial school and about two million
in home schools both of them, of course, the trend line is
on the upswing. There were a lot of people concerned that
the state regulations that would then be passed to sort of
comply with this federal mandate would be Draconian and
would make it difficult for them to teach their own
children. This was an amendment that was surreptitiously
submitted in a bill in a subcommittee at which only three
members of the subcommittee were present. No on objected. It
was just kind of dropped in there.
In reading through the bill two weeks
later, several congressional aides became aware of the
existence of this amendment. They contacted a lobbyist at
the Home School Defense Association, which in turn alerted
our staff and the staffs of other conservative religious
groups on Capitol Hill who, in turn, contacted various
conservative media outlets, Pat Robertson, Jim Dobson, Rush
Limbaugh and so forth. Fax networks were activated.
Home schoolers, who by he way, one of the
ways they get their lessons around amongst themselves is on
CompuServe and Internet. They immediately began to talk to
each other on computer bulletin boards and said, contact
your congressman.
Over a period of about 10 days, a million
phone calls descended on the Capitol. It got so bad that I
was sitting in my office one day. Members of Congress were
out campaigning and couldn't reach their own offices. They
couldn't get through. The chief sponsor of the bill, George
Miller of California, finally took his phone off the hook
and just activated a tape machine because they couldn't deal
with the incoming volume.
I got a call from one Congressional aide
who said, is there any way that you could turn off this
avalanche of phone calls? I said, frankly, there is no way
we can do it apart from having a vote and convincing people
that this bill is defeated. He said, well, you know, we're
all in favor of democracy up here but we've had about all
the democracy that we can stand for one week on Capitol
Hill.
(Laughter)
The vote was not scheduled to take place
for two weeks but at the urging of members of Congress who
were kind of bleary-eyed and dealing with the cursing
epitaphs of their staff who were having to handle the phone
calls, they moved the vote up one week and the bill was
defeated by a 424 to 1 margin. The only one voting for it
being the sponsor of the amendment.
I think you're going to see more
repetitions of that. I think we saw that today, on the
lobbying disclosure bill. I know that there is a broad range
ideologically represented here today but I believe that
there is a consensus among grassroots citizen action
organizations attempting to influence legislation,
attempting to bring the views of their grassroots members to
bear on the legislative process that this legislation was a
Draconian jackhammer, aimed at the heart of free expression,
our constitutional right to free speech and our
constitutional right to petition our lawmakers.
It would have required, as you know,
anyone who spent 10 percent of their time or more contacting
members of Congress, a determination that presumably would
have been made by an appointed bureaucrat, who would have
been the sort of CZAR of this whole bureaucracy, who would
have had subpoena power, who would have had the power to
drag people in for depositions and so forth.
These folks would have been then required
to register and I believe ultimately would have been
required to disclose either their membership lists or the
lists of people with whom they were having contact.
Ten days ago, this bill was heading for
something like a 300 to 125 vote in the House and something
like an 80 to 20 vote in the Senate. As everybody knows, we
came within five votes of defeating the rule in the House
and today, defeating an attempt to invoke cloture on the
bill by a 52 to 46 vote. I just want to walk through, very
quickly, the steps that we took and I know many other people
took to help bring this about.
The first thing that we did, was when we
became aware of the language in the bill we sent out faxes
to our one thousand chapters around the country, each of
which operates a telephone tree of people either operating
out of their offices or at kitchen tables in their homes and
each of their telephone trees has between 100 and 500 people
net-worked into them.
In Harris County, Texas we have a 4,000
member telephone tree which is computer driven where we have
the names and phone numbers of our membership lists tied
into a software program where we can have an audio message
tell them about the bill, give them a phone number to call
and it just randomly dials through that thing. In the space
of about six hours we can each 4,000 people, just through
that one telephone tree.
The technology is now available, by the
way, for grassroots workers to develop a membership list and
instead of sitting at their kitchen table after they have
put their children to bed and before they turn in for the
night making a dozen phone calls and half of the people
aren't in, the technology is now available to have those
lists auto-dialed off of computers without ever touching a
telephone. That's going to dramatically, I think, change
politics as more and more people become aware of it.
We estimate we have reached roughly
100,000 people just through the fax network, through
messages on both CompuServe and Internet. Secondly, the same
broadcast network that got activated on H.R. 6 got activated
on this legislation.
I know that there were liberal
journalists who were concerned about this as well but it
seemed to mostly emanate from conservative broadcast
outlets. Again, Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Marlin Maddox
(phonetic) out of Dallas, who is a syndicated talk show
host, Jim Dobson out of Colorado Springs. We also sent
alerts to 35,000 churches nationwide and then, finally,
engaged in a lot of personal lobbying, direct calls to
lawmakers.
The most successful tactic, by the way,
was to identify all the 96 aspirants in the Senate and have
people with Iowa and New Hampshire area codes call them and
urge that they vote against the bill. We then found that
what happened was the 96 aspirants got into sort of a
contest to see who could get the most votes against the
bill.
Whereas, you know, I mean really three or
four days ago we had a hard count of 30 no votes. Today,
there were 46 no votes.
After the H.R. 6 battle in March, the
"New York Times" had a banner headline in their story about
that victory by the grassroots religious activists and the
home schoolers and it said, "Congress Makes a Bow to the
Power of the Religious Right." Not unusually, they missed
point. The point was not that Congress had bowed to one
interest group or the other. The point was that the old,
sort of oligarchy of how information emanating from this
town is controlled and disseminated to the people is
breaking apart.
The networks are declining in viewership.
The number of people watching the CBS evening news has
declined by 40 percent since Dan Rather took the anchor
chair in 1983. That is going to continue. The number of
people during prime time, between 8:00 and 11:00 o'clock in
the evening, tuned to one of the three networks has declined
from 95 percent in 1980 to 58 percent today and it is going
to continue to decline as direct satellite television now
begins to eclipse cable. Instead of being able to get 40 or
50 channels people will be able to get 500 to 600 channels.
We are also no more than a few years away from direct
satellite transmission radio where you can have a satellite
dish on the trunk of your car the size of a quarter and
you'll be able to pick up whichever radio host you prefer
any time of the day or night, simply by dialing into that
satellite dish.
As that information revolution takes
place and as voter anger wells up from the bottom, I think
we're going to see a new, a more citizen-friendly and a more
grassroots oriented politics in this country unlike anything
we've seen since the populace revolt of the 1890's. I don't
think it's a conservative phenomenon or a liberal
phenomenon. I don't think it's a Republican or a Democrat
phenomenon. I think it crosses party lines and crosses the
ideological divide and I think, again, by the time we get
done, this is going to be a very different country and a
very different government.
If projections hold for November 8, we'll
see another 100 new members of Congress. We have already got
50 that have either lost or retired or are moving on to
other offices. We had 110 in 1992. That was the biggest
freshman class since 1946. If we get the 100 that are
projected on November 8, that would be 210 new members. That
would be about a 50 percent turnover in the House of
Representatives in the space of three years. That would be
the biggest turnover in the House since the Civil
War.
These are the kinds of things that are
happening around the country. You're going to continue, I
think, to see efforts to regulate, stifle and control and
direct and hamstring those changes and I think it's
incumbent upon all of us, liberals as well as conservatives,
whatever our ideological views to give the American people
an opportunity to make their voices heard. Thank you very
much.
(Applause)
MR. PRATT: Thank you.
It looks like we have some time for
questions so if there are some, the speakers are real close
to the podium. Could we entertain a question at this
time?
PARTICIPANT: I was wondering if the
existing statutes or any of the proposed regulations
differentiate between membership and donors. For instance,
our organization does not ask people for contributions. We
ask them to become members.
I was just wondering if any of the things
we've talked about today differentiate between those two
categories.
MR. SEGERMARK: Larry, can I answer
that?
Judy Richmond, from the Chamber of
Commerce is going to be speaking his afternoon and I can't
remember which session. It is either the three or four
o'clock.
The Chamber is going to be filing a suit
with the Federal Elections Commission on the issue of
defining a member. The FEC is recently doing that. So, we're
going to be addressing that this afternoon.
MR. PRATT: Someone over here?
PARTICIPANT: In view of the turnover
which we've just heard about in Congress over two years, why
is anybody asking for time limits? It seems to me that
democracy is working.
(Laughter)
MR. REED: Well, I think half of those are
retirements and the other half are defeated. So, I think you
are still dealing -- for example, in 1992, the House members
who didn't retire or run for something else still had a
retention or re-election rate of 88 percent which was lower
than it had ever been since 1974.
I still think all of the evidence
indicates that with PAC contributions, franked mail, name
ID, access to broadcast outlets, incumbent members of
Congress and incumbent officeholders, have an unfair
institutional advantage over challengers.
We think term limits will not only help
to even out that playing field, but also frankly, we think
it would be good for society, for people to rotate in and
out of office, not merely involuntarily in the sense of
defeat, but just move on and go back to the town in which
they live and live under the laws that they are passing
under everybody else. I think, frankly, a lot of the laws
that we are dealing with, that strike at the heart of free
speech and our right to participate, wouldn't happen if some
of those who come to this city and stay longer than
Catherine the Great ruled over Russia -- if they had to go
to their respective cities and live in our shoes for a while
and operate the way we have to operate.
MR. PRATT: Go ahead. There's one behind
you.
PARTICIPANT: I'm on the receiving end of
a multi-million dollar lawsuit, at one point a libel
lawsuit. The fellow is suing us for things that were
reported about his background, things which he says are true
to the court. He said he needed to see who we defamed him
to.
So, not only did he need the name of the
organization that the mailings were done for, their house
list, but he also needed to have the list of anybody else's
list that the letters were mailed to. That came to 2.2
million names.
My question is for Mr. Griffin.
You talked about the government not
getting a hold of lists. How do you feel about your
political opponent group, the group on the other side of
your issue getting the lists? Do you feel the same
way?
MR. GRIFFIN: I think it's the same
question. I mean, in civil litigation all the time when
there is a fight that goes on in a respective community or
in the political forum, the first attack is now to sue you
for defamation or libel and then to ask for your membership
list. I think it is the same concern that the courts have to
deal with.
The problem with a civil litigant is, the
courts are more readily inclined to give up the membership
list versus the state entity. There was a case out of
Illinois recently where they were able to fight off the
membership list in that state where a civil litigant was
sued. They immediately asked for the membership lists and
the courts said no, you can't have them.
So, I don't support that method of
litigation but it is going to happen and it continues to
happen. I'll give you one other example.
I represented, in a civil rights case, a
group of citizens that were shot by police officers. My
office elected to exercise his First Amendment right and
took out an ad in the newspaper for a week. "Please, if you
know anything about this officer, contact this number,
Anthony Griffin." The police officer then turned around and
sued my office and the newspaper for defamation saying that
we defamed him for telling the truth. He did shoot. He did
use one bullet to kill two people.
So, that tactic is used throughout. If
you say something unkind about me, I will sue you and then
ask you, if you are an organization, the first thing they
ask for is your lists.
PARTICIPANT: Anthony, I would like to
pursue government attempts at getting lists, outside the
kind we've been discussing. It was mentioned earlier this
morning at the Freedom Forum, that there is this new
television program where they're considering different First
Amendment issues and filmed one last Friday slap suits,
particularly the HUD attempts to go after groups in Seattle
and Berkeley and other places.
They attempted to enter into a
conciliation agreement in Seattle which would -- to get off
the backs of the people who they were after who they
investigated and harassed for over a year, government
attorneys.
One of the things that they demanded was
that the group turn over the list of anyone who was a
member, anyone who had contributed to or participated in any
of their meetings or any of these sorts of things. The group
refused to give it up but the HUD attorney was asked later
in the meeting, later in the show, how many of these kinds
of things were entered into each year.
They said there were approximately 10,000
complaints and that 6,000 of them are -- very few ever go to
trial. They just harass people. But 6,000 of them are solved
with conciliation agreements such as they offered the people
in Seattle. This means that a government agency is using its
power to go after every name and every contributing member
of a group that objects to their policies that they can
find.
MR. GRIFFIN: I think that this is where
the real conflict starts and where you will have friends
fighting friends. When HUD comes in and says -- a group of
citizens get together and they complain about, as an
example, a housing project put up in their
neighborhood.
HUD then invokes the Fair Housing Act and
says, the Fair Housing Act says to use intimidation, to
threaten, to coerce or to -- basically, they interpret those
words to protest. The housing project put up in my
neighborhood is in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Someone clicks off an investigation. So, you will have,
let's say, one group on one hand saying, we want to have
fair housing in our neighborhood. You have another group
that says, I don't want these houses, these projects built
in my neighborhood.
PARTICIPANT: The Seattle case was brought
because the group of local residents filed suit and the
Federal Government said that the filing of suit was a
violation of the Fair Housing Act. They could not have
recourse to the courts or to protest.
MR. GRIFFIN: I understand that and that's
where I part ways. I part ways to the extent that I am of a
firm belief that you have a right to protest. You have a
right to criticize. You have a right to say we don't want it
here. I think that's politics. I think that is the cultural
debate that we have to engage in.
I don't think HUD has a right to make
those types of positions, because what you're making the
citizen do
is -- it's a tightrope that we're being
forced to walk on the First Amendment. I don't think we can
create those types of exceptions to the First Amendment. I'm
really against that.
It is the same thing that Clinton did
when he came out and he proposed that anyone who lives in
housing projects will give up their Fourth Amendment right
to search and seizure. Well, I'm sorry. If I'm poor, it
doesn't mean that you can come into my home because you want
to counteract drugs in the project. That may be a very pure
stance, but I think that is the proper stance you have to
take. If you allow HUD to get away with that type of
behavior, then we're all in trouble.
MR. PRATT: Well, if that's it, we've got
just a few minutes to get back upstairs. Thank you very
much.
(Applause)
|