I am writing with an update on the President’s March 20, 2009 Memorandum on Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds. Section 3 of the Memorandum . . . barred registered lobbyists from having oral communications with government officials about specific Recovery Act projects or applications and instead required those communications to be in writing[.]

Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.

First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists.  For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process.  We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

(Emphasis mine, of course.)

I know, I know, the White House will say you’re still free to put your gripes in writing. But as Ace points out, does this mean no more phone calls to your congressman to complain about the stimulus?

The irony is that the White House blog post trumpeting this policy comes from “special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform.”

So anyway, Gateway Pundit has a post up saying that a bill proposed in the Connecticut legislature that would “put local laymen leadership over the Catholic Church in the state.”  And I’m thinking, “Can’t be.  No way.”  

And GP’s first link is to an “action alert” type of bulletin at Family Institute of Connecticut, which makes me doubt the story even more because action alert-type calls make me suspicious.  I’ve received way too many forwarded e-mails touting the latest outrage over which I’m supposed to write my congressman, phone the White House, or sign on online petition, only for the outrage to be entirely manufactured, and sometimes obviously so.  (“Write your congressman now to object to the Obama administration’s plan to make the military chaplain’s corps exclusively Muslim!”)

But then, GP also linked The Corner.  OK, slightly less skeptical now.  Uh oh.  The Corner’s post has three more warning signs against the authenticity of this story: (1) its title includes the word “outrage”; and (2) the writer learned of the “outrage” through an e-mail from a friend at the institute; and (3) it mostly quotes from the institute’s website.

So, what’s a skeptic to do?  Look  up the actual bill. Even then, I wasn’t convinced, because I had simply followed the link from a few different blogs, and I thought maybe someone posted a bogus bill to stir controversy.  So, to make sure I was really looking at the authentic website of the Connecticut General Assembly, I googled “Connecticut Legislature” and, sure enough, this seemed to be the real deal.

So I read the bill, and  . . . wow.  These folks are not exaggerating one bit.  

The bill would delete language from the existing statute regarding incorporation of Catholic churches (why there is a separate statute for them, I can’t say) that makes the pastor and local bishop ex-officio members of the corporation responsible for appointing two lay members (only one of whom is necessary for a quorum).  In place of that governing body, it would substitute a 7- to 13-member board of directors consisting entirely of lay people and making the pastor a non-voting ex-officio member of the board.  In short, it completely  reverses the roles of the pastor and congregation with regard to matters of finance, administration, and even “outreach programs and other services to be provided to the community.”  

The bill claims not to interfere with the “power, right, authority, duty or responsibility of the bishop or pastor in matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices,” (my emphasis), but that is a rather obviously bogus fig leaf.  It is an indicator that the bill’s author belongs to the school of thought that a person’s religion may not influence his public behavior.  Keep it in church, bub.  Your religions is protected by the First Amendment only in that we can’t dictate what you pray or how you worship in church.  Once you’re outside the sanctuary, all bets are off.

It also ignores that faith is interwoven in all of a church’s activities, not just its worship services.  Community outreach, charity . . . these are religious practices because they are undertaken in accord with the church’s teachings.  Who the hell (excuse me, heck) is going to draw the line between outreach and religious practice?

UPDATE: More at American Papist.

UPDATE #2: The Anchoress looks at the issue from a wider perspective, including religious/demographic trends in the U.S. and a philosophical discussion on church governance/doctrine.

I’ve never understood why the left enjoys (or seems to, anyway) having Bill Press as a front man.  The man is just not very bright, which I learned when I first heard him on radio station KFI in Los Angeles in the early 90s, and which he has continued to prove throughout the years, including during his stint on Crossfire.

He proves it again here:

I wonder if Press would still be for the fairness doctrine if it required each newspaper, magazine, TV news station, university, and  professional organization (American Medical Association, American Bar Association, American Library Association, etc. — which are generally dominated by leftist leadership) to give equal time across the political spectrum.  Any bets?

If public broadcasting licensees must operate in the public interest, conservative talk stations easily meet that standard. I mean, if the bilge that’s pumped out nightly on broadcast television (I’m talking about the “entertainment,” not just the news) doesn’t get those licenses yanked, how can you complain about conservative talk radio?

By the way, I’m not really impressed with Megyn Kelly here, either.  I know she’s somewhat of a darling at a few conservative blogs, but I suspect her sub-par performance here indicates that she knows it, too, and she’s willing to abandon a reasonable interview style in order to play up her conservative sex kitten image.  Let the man finish an answer next time, Megyn!

Hat tip: HotAir, where Ed Morrissey points out Press’s gaping omission regarding the radio market in DC.

Let’s assume Schumer’s general point is correct.  What is undeniably true is that the First Amendment’s enunciation of the right to free speech  was designed especially for political speech, and that is precisely what Schumer et al. hope to stifle with the fairness doctrine.

H/T: HotAir.