Texas politicians annoyed by hams over 2-way radio bills

[Opcom]

This e-mail I received is interesting.

Texas Legislature considers bills that would impact two-way radio.

Several bills involving the rights of persons to use two-way radio
equipment while driving are now before the Texas Legislature. 

You may have seen EMail communications asking that amateurs contact
certain State Representatives about them.  They come from some amateurs
in South Texas.

Today I received a message from the office of Senator John Carona, of
District 16 in Dallas, asking that amateurs "please desist any further
phone calls or faxes."  We are warned that this "risks alienating
legislators and staff." 

I am passing this on to you after discussing the matter with the South
Texas ARRL State Government Liaison.

Those with questions about this should contact me either by EMail at
n5gar@arrl.org or by phone at 214-361-5275. 

Thank you.

- - -

73's,
Tom Blackwell, N5GAR
ARRL North Texas Section Manager

http://www.arrl.net/sections/NTX.html

[KL7OF]

Those legislators should be worried about alienating their constituients!!

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Yea really. Imagine representatives (so called) being upset at hearing from those they claim to represent.

If the ARRL was really in the business of representing us to the government, they'd have an "election fund". Those who were on our side would get money. Those who weren't wouldn't. It's how all the rest of the special interests play the game.

[W3DBB]

.

[Carl WA1KPD]

If the ARRL was really in the business of representing us to the government, they'd have an "election fund". Those who were on our side would get money. Those who weren't wouldn't. It's how all the rest of the special interests play the game.

As a 501(c)3, can they legally do this?

No troll- just curious!

They can and they do
 http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=American+Radio+Relay+League&year=2008

[Carl WA1KPD]

Today I received a message from the office of Senator John Carona, of
District 16 in Dallas, asking that amateurs "please desist any further
phone calls or faxes."  We are warned that this "risks alienating
legislators and staff." 
- - -

Unless it is the same people calling, faxing and emailing it makes the point and I would continue.
If however it is just harrasment by ropbo fax etc. then you do run the risk of creating problems.
 
In addition for maximum impact those responding should not use a form letter. Be a bit creative

/KPD

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Of course not. Bribing elected officials is illegal. Hasn't stopped unions from doing it for 80 years.

If the ARRL was really in the business of representing us to the government, they'd have an "election fund". Those who were on our side would get money. Those who weren't wouldn't. It's how all the rest of the special interests play the game.

As a 501(c)3, can they legally do this?

No troll- just curious!

[W4EWH]

... for maximum impact those responding should not use a form letter. Be a bit creative

The best way to get a politician's attention is to write a letter by hand. My grandfather was in the Massachusetts legislature for years, and he always said that anyone mad enough to pick up a pen was going to be mad enough to pick up a sign if you didn't move fast.

FWIW.

Bill, W1AC

[w3bv]

Yea really. Imagine representatives (so called) being upset at hearing from those they claim to represent.

If the ARRL was really in the business of representing us to the government, they'd have an "election fund". Those who were on our side would get money. Those who weren't wouldn't. It's how all the rest of the special interests play the game.

501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.  The Internal Revenue Service website explains this prohibition as follows:

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

"Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

"On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention".

[W5JBP]

Back when I was president of the ARRL, I went to Washington many time and met with both sides of the house and senate. But being aware of the rules, never went to any of the (for a fee) lunches or dinners.

One Senate member still sends me invites to his ranch to bird hunt with other senate members for a minimum fee of $1,000.00.

I may go now that I am no longer in office, just to see what it is like to "hob nob" with them especially with a shot gun

Jim W5JBP

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Thanks for bolstering my point. If the ARRL was serious about representing us to Congress, they wouldn't be a 503(c)(3) organization. Money talks, BS walks. Let's get serious.

Yea really. Imagine representatives (so called) being upset at hearing from those they claim to represent.

If the ARRL was really in the business of representing us to the government, they'd have an "election fund". Those who were on our side would get money. Those who weren't wouldn't. It's how all the rest of the special interests play the game.

501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.  The Internal Revenue Service website explains this prohibition as follows:

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

"Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

"On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention".

[KB2WIG]

I may go now that I am no longer in office, just to see what it is like to "hob nob" with them especially with a shot gun

Jim W5JBP

You don't have to spend $1,000 to see what it's like....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/cheney/


klc

[w3bv]

Not quite.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA, Pub.L. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3, enacted February 7, 1972, 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.) as amended, For Profit Corporations cannot make contributions to candidates for Congress.

Loss of tax advantages that would accrue to the ARRL from converting from a non-profit to a For Profit Corporation aside (among other downsides), being a non-profit corporation hardly equates with being not being serious or efffective in protecting the interests of its members. For example, The National Rifle Assoction is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation and it can hardly be said that the NRA isn't serious about representing its members.

Thanks for bolstering my point. If the ARRL was serious about representing us to Congress, they wouldn't be a 503(c)(3) organization. Money talks, BS walks. Let's get serious.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

It was tongue in check. But since when does legal and lobbying Congress have anything in common. Buying off Congressmen has been since day one. Too bad the ARRL is late to the party.

Not quite.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA, Pub.L. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3, enacted February 7, 1972, 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.) as amended, For Profit Corporations cannot make contributions to candidates for Congress.

Loss of tax advantages that would accrue to the ARRL from converting from a non-profit to a For Profit Corporation aside (among other downsides), being a non-profit corporation hardly equates with being not being serious or efffective in protecting the interests of its members. For example, The National Rifle Assoction is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation and it can hardly be said that the NRA isn't serious about representing its members.

Thanks for bolstering my point. If the ARRL was serious about representing us to Congress, they wouldn't be a 503(c)(3) organization. Money talks, BS walks. Let's get serious.