Posted by: Aldon Hynes | May 30, 2009 1:18 AM

It is good to see that the Church is focusing on the really important issues that face our state, and not getting distracted by minor issues like the death penalty.

</snark>

Posted by: Bill | May 30, 2009 8:40 AM

This is just another attack on the Catholic Church because it opposes gay marriage and abortion. There are plenty of protestant churches that promote a political agenda and rallies who don't have to register as a lobbyist group.

P.S. The death penalty is a minor issue since it's rarely used, unlike abortion which kills millions.

Posted by:  Charles | May 30, 2009 10:08 AM

The Church should keep doing what its doing, take the fine, then fight it all the way. Make it a cause celebre!

Bring it on baby! :)

Posted by: Aldon Hynes | May 30, 2009 10:45 AM

Bill, my wife is a registered lobbyist. It isn't a big deal to register as a lobbyist. Anyone group that is spending over $2000 a year on lobbying is required by law to register.

There is nothing wrong with the Catholic Church lobbying. They should lobby, but they should also be honest about what they are doing and let everyone know.

As to Protestant Churches that promote a political agenda, any of them that spend more than $2000 a year should also register as lobbyists. If you know of any such groups, please provide details here.

Posted by: ctkeith | May 31, 2009 8:03 AM

If the Diocese of Bridgeport has a single dollar to spend on lawyers the settlment they reached for running a child molestation scheme and the cover up wasn't big enough.

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_12431514

Posted by: Sue | May 31, 2009 9:48 AM

Catechism of the Catholic Church

LIFE IN CHRIST

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

~ Hey, they wrote this, not me.

Posted by: bill | May 31, 2009 4:57 PM

Aidon,
One of too many to list:
BRIDGEPORT -- Campaigning for what many are calling the most inspirational presidential candidate since his uncle was running, Ted Kennedy Jr. gave the keynote address at the largest Connecticut rally since early September in support of the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

The rally, held at the Mount Aery Baptist Church in this shoreline city,
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/26204

Posted by:  Charles | May 31, 2009 5:54 PM

And lets not forget, "An unjust law is no law at all."
--St. Augustine

Posted by: catdance | May 31, 2009 6:34 PM

Lobbying is defined as trying to influence legislators either for or against specific legislation. There are laws regulating lobbying, and rightly so -- those laws protect the general citizenry from laws which benefit one group with deep pockets at the expense of everyone else.

No one is trying to stop the Catholic church (or any other Church) from acting in free conscience, nor is anyone trying to force them to act against their conscience -- in religious or fiscal matters. However, if they are going to lobby they must follow the same rules every other lobbyist must follow.

Bishop Lori -- and any other individual -- is certainly free to take it upon him/herself to make a sign, get in his/her car, drive up to Hartford, and make his/her feelings known. However, when Bishop Lori hires buses and has parish priests exhort their congregations to take days off from work, get on hired transportation to Hartford in order to support the position of the Catholic church, that's a whole different matter. Bishop Lori has the right to do that, but if he spent more than $2,000.00 in the course of doing it, he has to register as a lobbyist.

It will be interesting to see on what grounds Bishop Lori is going to argue that he is above the laws governing lobbying. Maybe he's using the guidelines provided by the FIC: "Guidelines for Political Activities by Churches and Pastors."

http://www.ctfamily.org/Church.Political.Activity.Analysis.pdf

I for one wish the Catholic church in Connecticut wasn't being led by the nose by Ken von Kohorn and Peter Wolfgang.

Posted by: David Pia | May 31, 2009 10:49 PM

The Catholic Church and the Diocese of Bridgeport provide;
Catholic Schools which lessen the educational burden on the state- Open to anyone

Catholic Charities - Which lessen the burden of care on the state - available to anyone.

Catholic Hospitals - Which lessen the burden of care on the state - available to anyone.

The list of good works that the Catholic Church provides us as Connecticut residents is endless. Yet The Church is in constant battle to protect itself. Never would the state interfere with Muslim or Jewish faiths nor would they interefere with Black & Latino causes. Actually, Connecticut (and most municipalities) have a Black & Latino caucus, self serving for only their issues. Why is there no caucus for The Catholic Church or Religous in general who provide so much to this state, not in a self serving manner but in a manner to serve all of us in Connecticut?!

David Pia

Posted by: Bill | June 1, 2009 8:14 AM

Lobbyist's are people who meet one on one with legislators to influence their votes. Rallying voters is NOT lobbying. All churches rally voters as my previous post proves.

Posted by: Charles | June 1, 2009 8:28 AM

Good point Bill - when did they start considering holding a rally the same thing as lobbying?

Posted by: cr | June 1, 2009 9:06 AM

"Give onto Cesar what is Cesar's?"
Who gets away with such errors? Doesn't anyone actually proofread copy before it gets posted?

Posted by: Aldon Hynes | June 1, 2009 9:53 AM

Bill,
You seem to be confusing several things here. First off, lobbying is NOT limited to people meeting one on one with legislators. Lobbying is "to solicit or try to influence the votes of members of a legislative body." (Webster's Definition) This can, and often is, done one on one. However, it can be done by organizing a rally at the State Capitol.

The case you cited above seems to be about campaigning, the effort to affect who gets elected as opposed to what people do when they get elected.

The second key point that you are missing is the difference between state and federal legislation. The Office of State Ethics is focused efforts to lobby State Legislators. The case you cited was focused on a national election and is not in the purview of the Office of State Ethics.

So, I return my question, clarified in terms of what is being discussed here. Can you cite any examples of Protestant Churches spending over $2000 to organize a rally to try to influence the votes of members of a legislative body?

Posted by: christine | June 1, 2009 10:07 AM

Good catch CR I corrected it. Thanks for the copyedit.

Posted by: bill | June 1, 2009 2:00 PM

Aiden,

You seem to be confusing getting voter support for issues with lobbying. They are distinctly different activities. Busing people to a rally is not lobbying, and less egregious than holding a rally inside a church which is mentioned in the article I posted.

And the incident I quoted was to influence Connecticut elections not just national ones.

Posted by: Michael McLachlan | June 1, 2009 7:30 PM

I am alarmed to hear the Diocese of Bridgeport was forced to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court to protect their First Amendment rights due to actions by the Office of State Ethics. It seems ironic that the Roman Catholic Church and many other faith communities in Connecticut were fighting S.B. 1098 - a misguided bill that was clearly a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution - and are now subject to lobbying laws in Connecticut.

I understand the lobbying laws in Connecticut are designed to carefully monitor professional lobbying activities - not the casual visitor to the State Capitol. Many organizations visit the Capitol to express their views on legislation but have no registered lobbyists. Is the Office of State Ethics suggesting organizers of every rally at the Capitol should register as a lobbyist?

I don't see the connection of applying restrictions to a church organization using a website to communicate with their members and facilitate contacting their legislators. Once again, I see this activity as a First Amendment right.

I have grave concerns that our ethics statutes may be going too far in direct violation of the First Amendment. I have filed amendments on several bills at the Capitol to address these concerns. Hopefully, fellow legislators will agree that we must preserve church organizations' First Amendment rights and support changes to the lobbying laws.

Posted by: Jay | June 2, 2009 12:30 AM

LOL, this is a First Amendment issue, but not in the way the Catholic Church believes. Any organization that seeks to lobby the legislature, but follow the rules of lobbying. All the other church groups must do so, why must the Church think it has a special place. Now, if the church were to officially form a lobbying organization and separate their official church site from the lobbying web site, this would be an improvement.

However, the Church does not believe that it must comply with the same rules as everyone else. So this is a First Amendment issue, but its the fault of the Church not the state. We all have the right to speak our minds and to lobby our legislators. However, when a religious, or any other institution, wishes to lobby on behalf of an issue, then they must follow the same rules as all other lobbying organizations. They are on thin constitutional ground here and they will be laughed out of court. The Church officials state themselves that "The lawsuit claims that the diocese was compelled to "oppose unconstitutional legislation that struck at its right of religious self-governance," when it undertook the action the state officials deemed to be lobbying."

Ok, I think they should lobby, I may not agree with them, but they also are not exempt from the rules of other religious organizations or groups. If they are seeking to influence a legislators, that is lobbying plain and simple. All they have to do is register as a lobbying organization, a simple form. This is not denying them the right to have a rally.

Posted by: robn | June 2, 2009 9:05 AM

Maybe while Sen McLachlan is venting his outrage and "making no law respecting an establishment of religion" he could include some amendments which strip away the generous and anachronistic tax privileges awarded to these very wealthy institutions.

Posted by: JMD | June 2, 2009 7:47 PM

Maybe you should read the 1st and 14th Amendmensts.

According to wikipedia: The First Amendment is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Although the First Amendment only explicitly applies to the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state.

The Catholic Church has every right to do what they did. If you don't see that this just another in a series a bias attacks against the Church, you're either not informed or or don't want to be...

Posted by: theofraxis | June 18, 2009 11:12 PM

Catdance said, "Bishop Lori has the right to do that, but if he spent more than $2,000.00 in the course of doing it, he has to register as a lobbyist."

If I send a first class letter to about 4000 people, it will cost $2000. If that letter informs its recipients that pending legislation would eviscerate the governance structure of the diocese and that it should be resisted, I have to GET THE STATE's PERMISSION FIRST????

And that's OK with you?

If like a revolutionary pamphleteer, I want to stand on the street corner handing out flyers that express a political point of view, and I spend more than $2K doing so, I have to get the approval of Carol Carson?

I don't think so. Not yet, anyway.

Posted by: jdscotus | June 23, 2009 6:51 PM

If rallying in front of a legislative building is a form of lobbying, then the leaders of the Civil Rights movement should have been forced to register as lobbyists.

What of the various rallies that take place in DC and at state capitols every year? Are their organizers forced to register as lobbyists?