Archive for Wednesday, June 5, 2013

NRA-backed Kansas law raises tough free-speech issues

June 5, 2013


— Fresh off a series of legislative victories across the nation, the National Rifle Association has launched a new effort starting in gun-friendly Kansas seeking to clamp down on the use of government money to lobby on gun-control issues.

While it’s not clear how the law would be enforced considering it includes no penalties for violators, critics argue the measure threatens to stifle debate and give the state government far more control over a local government’s message.

For instance, would university presidents — now confronted with a new Kansas law to allow concealed-carry weapons on campuses — be able to travel on university time and salary to argue against the rule? Or, could a government agency even print a pamphlet about gun safety without running afoul of the law?

“It does raise these questions about one side or the other becoming so dominant that it can close off opposing views,” said Gene Policinski, senior vice president for the nonpartisan First Amendment Center, based at Vanderbilt University.

The Kansas law that takes effect next month also prohibits the use of state dollars for “publicity or propaganda,” distributing materials or advertising. Although it imposes the same restrictions on both sides of the debate, gun-rights advocates pressed so much for it in the recently concluded legislative session that it was known inside the Statehouse as “the NRA bill.”

For the NRA and other gun-rights advocates, the lobbying law is a good-government measure that prevents precious state dollars from being put to political use and another symbol of Kansas’ commitment to gun-ownership rights.

“People are going to look to Kansas,” said Brent Gardner, an NRA liaison who lobbies in four states, including Kansas. “People are starting to see a number of states becoming leaders in firearms rights.”

Gardner said Kansas is the first state to enact a law restricting the use of state dollars on lobbying or other forms of advocacy specifically on gun-control issues, though legislators in Arizona and Wisconsin also have expressed an interest. The National Conference of State Legislatures hadn’t heard of activity on the topic, and the idea is so novel that even the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said it didn’t know enough about the law to comment on it.

The immediate effect of the law is unclear, particularly considering conservatives encountered little resistance this year in pushing through the Legislature two measures broadly expanding the rights of gun owners. One loosens the restrictions on permit holders for carrying concealed guns into local government and state-run college buildings. The other flatly declares the federal government has no power to regulate firearms, ammunition and accessories manufactured, sold and kept in the state.

Opposition in Lawrence and elsewhere

In the city of Lawrence, home to Kansas University, officials are frustrated over the concealed weapons law, and Mayor Mike Dever said the lobbying restriction could hamper local officials who want to change state or federal policies.

“It kinds of creates an interesting dilemma for local government agencies, when they feel strongly about something and have to be careful,” Dever said.

The western Kansas town of Hays has its own lobbyist in the Kansas Statehouse. Although Mayor Kent Steward said he isn’t particularly troubled by the new gun laws, he is concerned about the precedent it sends if the state government can restrict a local government’s lobbying on a divisive issue.

“Anytime government starts getting into the area of limiting speech, it sends up a red flag,” he said. “ ... The best course may be, if you find one thing that’s distasteful, you may do better to put up with it.”

Expanding the limitation

Supporters said the bill is similar to past restrictions imposed by Congress on using federal funds for lobbying or political activities, and that small-government, conservative Republicans in the Kansas Legislature have wanted for years to impose broad restrictions on local governments and school districts using their state dollars to hire Statehouse lobbyists.

All of those previous attempts failed, largely because their prohibitions were so broad that lawmakers found it too politically difficult to impose a blanket ban. This year, lawmakers started with a broader proposal to ban government advocacy but soon faced questions about whether it would hinder such things as efforts to decrease tobacco use.

Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, a Hutchinson Republican, said he viewed the lobbying ban on guns as the most that could get approved this year, but he said he’d like to expand the effort in the future.

Civil libertarians and some local officials are nervous the ban could eventually be extended to other issues, such as abortion, immigration or even increased funding for public schools. They contend it’s an assault on free-speech rights that hinders some officials’ ability to represent their constituents.

“Certainly, the issue is likely to come back,” said Mark Tallman, an associate executive director and lobbyist for the Kansas Association of School Boards. “Is it a precedent to be concerned about? Of course it is.”

State Sen. Jeff King, an Independence Republican, said Kansans see the Second Amendment as a “fundamental core” of their rights.

“This is not a freedom of speech issue,” he said. “This is an issue of using taxpayer dollars.”

The law does include an exception to the lobbying ban for “normal and recognized executive and legislative relationships.” Shawn Naccarato, a Pittsburg State University official who lobbies at the state capitol, said he thinks that clause protects him. If not, he said, it would be almost impossible to calculate how much time he dedicates to a specific issue.

But backers of the measure are worried about more than lobbying.

They cite the state health department’s association with Safe Kids, an alliance of groups concerned about child safety that endorses “efforts at the national level to restrict new sales of assault weapons.” Two Safe Kids coordinators work in an office out of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, which also has a link to the organization on its website.

Gardner said the gun owners don’t want their tax dollars spent on such activities. The health department said state dollars aren’t involved and the two employees’ jobs are financed with federal dollars.

Doug Bonney, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri, called the new law “odd.”

“Is this really a problem?” he said.


question4u 4 years, 9 months ago

It's not surprising that extremists would want to control speech. Now imagine that in another state a legislature of left-wing extremists passes a bill prohibiting the use of state funds for lobbying AGAINST gun control. Every anti-freedom-of-speech legislator in the Kansas House and Senate would have to call that fair or be exposed as a blatant hypocrite.

Americans value free speech. In the third world they shut it down.

somebodynew 4 years, 9 months ago

People are going to look to Kansas,”

Yes, they are. And between this and the other stupid things the Legislature has done, they are going to say, RUN. And then shake their heads in shock and awe.

Liberty275 4 years, 9 months ago

Mayors and university presidents can have all the free speech in the world but their political opinions are not something I should pay for.

When we are giving you money, do the job the contract specifies. If you want to engage in political advocacy, do it on your own time.

Doug Harvey 4 years, 9 months ago

Apply this to the Brownbackians who have made a dog's breakfast of the state budget.

jafs 4 years, 9 months ago

If he's not doing his job, then fire him.

Otherwise, once he's paid, isn't it his money to spend as he likes? And, since, spending money on political advocacy has been found to be an expression of 1st amendment rights, how can you stop him from doing that without violating those rights?

elliottaw 4 years, 9 months ago

The same can be said about you, are you willing to toe the line with every thought your company says, they are not payi gmyou to have your own ideas.

balancedscales 4 years, 9 months ago

Could not have said this better myself. I do not want to pay for someone else to push ideas onto the public, and this also goes for issues that I agree with. This forces those that do not agree with the issue to support it with their tax dollars!

balancedscales 4 years, 9 months ago

Yes this is their job, but they should not spend others money trying to sway the public opinion in their direction.

optimist 4 years, 9 months ago

I don't think this law prevents public employees or agencies from promoting safety, even when it comes to firearms. Safety refers to the safe use of firearms, or in the case of children what to do when they come across a firearm that is unattended. Taking a political position such as the legality of certain firearms and/or laws pertaining to the restriction of private law-abiding citizen ownership of firearms does not fall into this category. No taxpayer should be forced to pay for advocacy against their interests. Public employees or agencies are not prevented from acting on their own behalf but rather acting in their official capacity. Such prohibitions are very common in government, military and the private sector (i.e. the military prevents soldiers from speaking negatively about leadership and the service; or my employer may terminate my employ should I make statements against their interests). The remedy here is discontinuation of employ or funding. Nobody is prevented from speaking their mind. There is simply no protection from the consequences of speaking ones mind. While I do agree with the intent of this law it cannot be interpreted broadly. I would strongly oppose any attempt to fine, incarcerate or criminally prosecute any person for exercising their rights.

Doug Harvey 4 years, 9 months ago

The people currently running this state have no idea what a democratic-republic even is much less how to be its public servants. But then, neither does a large portion of the state's population.

jafs 4 years, 9 months ago


So if somebody's a state employee, the state can tell them how to spend their paycheck?

eastcoastboy 4 years, 9 months ago

That's different and you know it. The state can't tell you how to spend your Personal money, but it CAN tell you how to spend there money when you are at work.

jafs 4 years, 9 months ago

When you get paid, that money is your "personal money", isn't it?

Why do you call it "their money" if you're working in exchange for it?

weeslicket 4 years, 9 months ago

the governor is a paid with taxpayer monies. he travels on the taxpayers' dimes. will these laws be applied equally to the governor?

same question for legislators, KTA administrators, and any businesses that recieve tax breaks from the state?

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 4 years, 9 months ago

I do not want my tax dollars used to lobby for or against any issue, period !!

Jonathan Becker 4 years, 9 months ago

If the LLC, of which I am a member, and which received a $14,000 tax break from Sammie last year budgets $14,000 to spend on a gun registration bill, would the LLC have to give back the money? In Citizen's United v. FEC, the Supreme Court said corporations are people too and protected by the First Amendment..

Sometimes governing is choosing between a bad choice and a worse choice. Sammie and friends live in a fantasy world.

verity 4 years, 9 months ago

Why does this only apply to "gun control issues"?

All or nothing.

The glaring hypocrisy makes my head hurt.

KSManimal 4 years, 9 months ago

I wonder..... will any private citizen, using their own money, be able to travel on public roads in order to lobby on gun control issues? And, if they're providing testimony to a legislative committee, they would be using a microphone & PA system powered by tax-funded electricity. We can't allow that, now, can we?


StephenCCH 4 years, 9 months ago

I don't want public funds to be used for any sort of propaganda, whether gun related, religious, environmental, or other.

Government is supposed to represent society, not shape opinion.

How is it free speech when my wages are forcibly confiscated to pay for messages I disagree with?

Richard Heckler 4 years, 9 months ago

What about the large amount of misinformation stream that comes from the medical insurance industry WHICH collects over 1 trillion tax $$$$$$$$ annually that keeps Single Payer Insurance off the table and funds 8 lobbyists per elected official?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.