Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Republicans vote to stop non-profits from registering voters
NOTE: I did not use the Yahoo News title - and believe this is a serious matter, I also have major problems with the slant to the story - major opinions inserted into it, which detract from it.
HOUSE BILL TAKES AIM AT VOTERS OF COLOR
Last week, an ugly bit of business transpired in the GOP-dominated House of Representatives, where Republican hard-liners succeeded in passing a measure that would limit the ability of nonprofit groups to conduct voter registration drives. It was one of those moments when you don't have to wonder what the jihadist faction of the GOP is up to: They want to restrict the franchise to people who think as they do.
Rep. John Lewis (news, bio, voting record), D-Ga., a veteran of the civil rights movement, said the measure would "take us back to 1964 or 1965. I just think they (Republicans) want to be in a position to stifle the participation of poor people and minorities in the political process. They want to take us back to another period."
This heavy-handed step was of a piece with other Republican efforts to place obstacles in the way of voters they fear may favor Democrats. In Georgia, the GOP-dominated legislature passed a law earlier this year requiring all voters to have a state-sponsored photo ID, such as a driver's license. Happily, a federal court has ruled the law an unconstitutional impediment to voting.
In South Dakota, Republican legislators were more successful with their onerous voter ID requirement, passed in 2003 and apparently aimed at Native Americans, who also tend to support Democrats. Last year, though, two Republican senators, Kit Bond of Missouri and Richard Shelby of Alabama, failed in their attempt to sneak a provision into law that would have prohibited public housing sites from hosting voter registration initiatives and get-out-the-vote drives.
Last week's partisan power play took the form of an amendment tacked onto a piece of legislation intended to increase regulatory oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage financing companies recently plagued by accounting scandals. The House bill included a sorely needed provision to create a fund for affordable housing, prompted by calls for federal aid to rebuild the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.
But to placate an ultraconservative group called the Republican Study Committee, an amendment was added that prohibits any nonprofit group from receiving any of the federal affordable-housing funds if it has conducted a voter registration campaign in the past year, even if it has used its own funds to do so.
This is not a poll tax; this is a poll ax. If this measure becomes law -- the Senate has not yet acted on it -- it will penalize countless organizations, including churches, that have run voter registration drives and also built high rises for the elderly and low-cost apartment complexes that accommodate store clerks, janitors and fast-food workers.
Republicans seem to think that residents of low-cost housing, especially black and brown residents, have a tendency -- one they find troubling -- to vote Democratic. You'd think the GOP would find a way to appeal to those voters. But that would require the party to forsake its allegiance to big business and the wealthy. So, instead, it has decided to try to suppress the vote among citizens of color.
Among the more than 600 nonprofits that protested the amendment was Catholic Charities USA. "Nonprofits with expertise in housing should not have to choose between two equally important missions: supporting full participation in our democracy and providing affordable housing," the Rev. Larry Snyder, president of the group, said in a letter to House GOP leaders. He also pointed out that the amendment didn't place any restrictions on for-profits that register voters. "We are puzzled and troubled by the double standard being applied to faith-based and nonprofit organizations," he wrote.
GOP backers of the amendment say all they're trying to do is make sure that federal funds are not used to support partisan political activities. There's just one problem: That's already illegal. Indeed, many nonprofits have been more careful about observing restrictions against partisanship since the Christian Coalition lost its tax-exempt status in 1999 over voter guides that it distributed in churches.
Given the apathy so many Americans show toward the franchise, you'd think our political leaders would be doing everything possible to encourage more citizens to vote. As Lewis put it, "We go around the world telling people to participate in the political process." Isn't that exactly what we should be telling people -- all the people, regardless of color or class or political affiliation -- here at home?
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________ When the body has a cancer - even a very small one - physicians use every means at their disposal to eradicate it. There is no talk of proportionality. Healthy tissue may suffer the treatments, but radiation, chemotherapy and anything else that works is sent into the battle when dealing with a disease that will, sooner or later, snuff out life.
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
C'mon, righties..... you've got some 'splainin to do.....
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
C'mon, righties..... you've got some 'splainin to do.....
The initial artical seems kinda misleading.
First of all the house vote was 331 to 90...so it looks like the majority of democrats voted for this. Perhaps this isn't as blatently partisan as what it appears from first glance...
I don't know what exactly is in the ammendment - but I have heared news that during the last 2-years...there has been accounting irregularities discovered in the tune of $9-10 billion dollars related to faith-based organizations and other groups that are involved in voter-registration activities.
Basically it stops these groups from receiving money from an affordable housing fund under the bill.
For the left winged folks...GW is against this measure...who do you think will be impacted more?
Quote:
October 27, 2005
House Approves Overhaul at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 - Responding to the accounting scandals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the House of Representatives approved legislation on Wednesday overhauling the regulatory oversight of the two huge mortgage financing companies.
The legislation, approved by a lopsided vote of 331 to 90, would create a new regulator for the Federal Home Loan Banks and for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, companies formally known as government-sponsored enterprises. The new agency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, would be financed through assessments on the banks and companies. It would have the authority to set capital requirements, reject new business products being offered by the companies and limit their portfolio holdings.
"What we enable with the passage of this bill is the creation of an independent regulator with all the tools necessary to protect the taxpayer," said Representative Richard H. Baker, a Louisiana Republican who is the chief sponsor of the bill. "This is a fair compromise."
But the measure was sharply criticized by the Bush administration and differs significantly from legislation moving through the Senate.
Even as they have weathered financial scandals and management shakeouts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with their political allies in Congress and the mortgage and construction industries, continue to exert considerable political influence on the legislation.
They soundly defeated one attempt to eliminate Fannie's and Freddie's ability to borrow money from the federal Treasury and a second amendment that would have given their new regulator greater authority. They also saved a provision that would give them the ability to provide financing for larger and more lucrative loans.
By a voice vote, the House also approved an amendment supported by Fannie and Freddie and opposed by the Bush administration that would continue letting the White House select a number of board members. In the past, investors have inferred that such political appointments mean that the federal government will rescue Fannie and Freddie in case of default. It is that belief that has enabled Fannie and Freddie to pay lower interest rates on their bonds than most other companies pay.
The legislation now awaits action by the full Senate, which is not expected before next year. Last July, the Senate banking committee approved a similar measure on a vote along party lines.
Differences between the House and Senate versions, however, could doom the legislation if not reconciled. The Senate bill would require the companies to slowly divest most of their $1.5 trillion investment portfolios. The House bill leaves portfolio limits to the discretion of the new Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have lobbied against the imposition of such limits, particularly since their portfolios account for most of their earnings.
The strict limits on portfolio size in the Senate version have been sought by the Bush administration and by Alan Greenspan, who is stepping down soon as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Mr. Greenspan and administration officials have said that the enormous portfolios of the companies - nearly a quarter of the home mortgage market - posed significant risks to the nation's financial system should either company face major problems.
The White House issued a statement on Wednesday criticizing the legislation adopted by the House, saying it envisioned a regulatory regime that "is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions."
The legislation "fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large," the White House statement said.
Ben S. Bernanke, who has been selected by President Bush to succeed Mr. Greenspan, has not publicly taken a position on the regulation of the mortgage financing companies.
The Senate bill, unlike the House bill, would not establish a new affordable housing fund. Administration officials also oppose such a fund because, they say, it could lead to increased risk-taking.
The House bill, unlike the Senate measure, would let Fannie and Freddie enter the jumbo mortgage market by raising the limit on loans that they could purchase from banks and other mortgage lenders.
Currently, Fannie and Freddie are able to purchase loans for mortgages up to $359,000 this year and $400,000 next year. The House bill would raise that amount to $600,000 in many markets. By a vote of 358 to 57, the House defeated an amendment proposed by Representative E. Scott Garrett, Republican of New Jersey, to strike the increase in the loan limit.
The House bill sets aside 3.5 percent to 5 percent of the company's profits over the next five years for grants to build low-income housing. But a provision inserted in the bill at the 11th hour to assuage conservative Republicans provoked considerable debate because it would prohibit any group that engages in voter mobilization efforts from applying for grants.
The provision was opposed by more than 600 nonprofit and faith-based groups, including the National Urban League, Catholic Social Services, the N.A.A.C.P. and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. They said the provision was unconstitutional, contending that it interfered with voter registration efforts, and undermined the purpose of creating the housing fund.
"Under the Republican provision, you can't do get-out-the-vote efforts if you work in affordable housing," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. "There is an extremism here that is not comprehensible except if you know the history."
"It has always been clear that the money can only be spent on affordable housing," Mr. Frank said of the housing grants.
Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat who became a national figure for his leading role in civil rights struggles of the 1960's, concurred.
"I can't believe this is happening in 2005," he said. "This is not 1964. This is not 1965. What we are saying is our own people, churches, synagogues, cannot participate in nonpartisan voter registration drives. What are we saying to the world? This provision will take us back to the dark past. We can do better, much better."
But the Republicans disagreed, saying the provision would insulate the money from being used for political purposes.
"This provides accountability for where the money goes," said Representative Michael G. Oxley of Ohio, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and a main sponsor of the legislation. "We want to make certain that every dollar we make available goes for housing."
Mr. Baker said that for those groups who want to apply for grants and are also politically involved, "They will have to make a choice."
Here of late, it's difficult to tell who is controlling who on the right side of the aisle.
A point well taken, DJ..... This was a rider on a bigger budget bill. Nonetheless, what was the reason for this action? Voting being a fundamental right that was foundational to this country, every single person and organization should be trying to get people to vote, don't you think?
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
...Voting being a fundamental right that was foundational to this country, every single person and organization should be trying to get people to vote, don't you think?
Indeed I do agree with you.
However, it doesn't mean I support that any faith-based or civil rights group get federally funded housing.
I rather see the money go to new affordable housing and not for lobbying.
However, it doesn't mean I support that any faith-based or civil rights group get federally funded housing.
I rather see the money go to new affordable housing and not for lobbying.
Ok..... In typical fashion, I'm getting more confused....
1. Does the bill reference ALL non-profits, or just charitable non-profits?
2. Is there a reason that I am missing as to why federally funded housing is connected to voter registration drives?
HELP ME, MR WIZAAAAAARRRRRDDDDD!!!!! (drizzle,drazzle, drozle, drone.....)
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
Ok..... In typical fashion, I'm getting more confused....
1. Does the bill reference ALL non-profits, or just charitable non-profits?
2. Is there a reason that I am missing as to why federally funded housing is connected to voter registration drives?
HELP ME, MR WIZAAAAAARRRRRDDDDD!!!!! (drizzle,drazzle, drozle, drone.....)
From what I read the House bill sets aside 3.5 percent to 5 percent of the company's profits over the next five years for grants to build low-income housing.
But what the big hoopla is for some folks is a particular Amendment that would prohibit any group that engages in voter mobilization efforts from applying for grants.
That provision is/was opposed by over 600 nonprofit and faith-based groups, including the National Urban League, Catholic Social Services, the N.A.A.C.P. and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Those groups claim that the provision is unconstitutional, contending that it interfered with voter registration efforts, and undermined the purpose of creating the housing fund.
As to your last question on why federally funded housing is/was connected to voter registration drives...I don't have the facts on that one.
IMO I see the provision being more clear cut that the money can only be spent on affordable housing.
I guess what I am missing is, "if you don't spend any money on a voter registration drive (using volunteers and the registration forms are free), does that still count against you?"
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
I guess what I am missing is, "if you don't spend any money on a voter registration drive (using volunteers and the registration forms are free), does that still count against you?"
I'll just have to respond with a question...why should fannie and freddie money go to funding housing for faith based and non-profit groups?
Linear Mode
