Fox News Network

January 12, 2007 Friday

SHOW: FOX HANNITY & CO 9:00 PM EST

Are Dems Trying to Stifle Dissent?

BYLINE: Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes

GUESTS: James Dobson

SECTION: NEWS; Domestic

LENGTH: 1322  words

(NEWSBREAK)

HANNITY: Freedom of speech is being threatened by a new bill from the new Democratic majority in Congress. Senate bill No. 1 proposes to provide greater transparency in the legislative process, but does that really mean silencing conservative groups?

Joining us now is the founder and the chairman of Focus on the Family Action, Dr. James Dobson, back with us.

Dr. Dobson, always good to have you. Welcome back.

DR. JAMES DOBSON, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: Gentlemen, it's a pleasure to be back on your show.

HANNITY: Happy New Year. All right. I want to go specifically into this section of Senate Bill 1 and more specifically, the provision of Section 220. Dr. Dobson, that you have been very outspoken about. Can you explain it to people?

DOBSON: Well, it's just outrageous. You know, the Democrats promised more civility and more bipartisanship. And here they are, the very first piece of legislation to come along has a provision in it that would muffle and stifle organizations like ours when they simply attempt to communicate with the grassroots.

And it is -- yes, it is, you know, obviously a contradiction to the First Amendment, and it is unconscionable and we're going to fight it.

HANNITY: And I read a lot of what you have said about it. More specifically, you fear that group like Focus could be subjected to $100,000 fine or more.

But if you could articulate and specifically tell us the language that you believe would do this if, in fact, it passed. It reminds me a lot of the fairness doctrine that would silence conservative radio hosts, for example.

DOBSON: I think it has very much the same motive to it. And it not only deals with conservative organizations, but liberal ones, too. I can't understand why the liberals aren't yelling about this, because the essence of it is that, instead of just having to report as a nonprofit to the IRS, we would now have to report to the Senate every single telephone conversation that we have with any elected official.

HANNITY: That's insane.

DOBSON: And all the dollars that we spend to try to communicate with people would have to be recorded. And if we don't do it, it's a $100,000 fine per incident. It's just crazy, what they're trying to do.

HANNITY: You know what? What it does is on a very, very sinister level here, it makes it so cost prohibitive and so labor intensive that you can't accomplish the mission of -- all you're really doing is expressing a point of view using your First Amendment rights.

I know you've had a call to action, Dr. Dobson. You have a huge radio audience and a huge audience in general. What specifically doubted people can do and what do you want them to do?

DOBSON: Well, I hope that your listeners will call the United States Senate. Call both your senators and tell them to vote for the amendment that removes the Provision 220 from this bill, because that has been submitted by Senator Bennett on behalf of Republicans, and it ought to pass.

Because this has no place in a bill dealing with ethics. There's nothing unethical about our telling people what people are doing in Washington. You know, you could call this bill, "We don't want people to know what we're doing." Because that's in essence what the Democrats are trying to accomplish.

COLMES: Dr. Dobson, it's Alan. Welcome back to our show.

DOBSON: Thank you, Alan. Welcome back.

COLMES: Thank you very much, sir. You know, this is bipartisan. This is not a Republican bill. This bill has support of both parties. And important senators, and key senators from both parties. To paint this as a Democratic attempt is not exactly the way it is in terms of who's supporting this.

DOBSON: Well, Alan, I have been up to my ears in this legislation, and you're wrong about that. Senator McConnell does not favor this. He's a minority leader. And I just said that Senator Bennett, a Republican, has authored the amendment to kill it. So Republicans are not behind this.

COLMES: Well, McConnell is among others. Let me just put up 220 on the screen. And here's what it actually says.

It requires disclosure of effects to encourage members of the general public to contact legislative or executive branch officials. Communications made by an entity directed at its members, employees, officers or shareholders are excluded from reporting.

And by the way, you've got to be giving $10,000 or more to those telephone conversations to be reported, as you've alluded to. Where in this 220 does it indicate that free speech would somehow be squelched, were it to pass?

DOBSON: Alan, the legislation is very confused, and only the judges will determine exactly how it plays out.

But our lawyers tell us, and so do others from around the country, that we will have to have a reporting system of every broadcast where we tell people what's happening in Washington. And all of our magazines that talk about that. And every conversation that we have with a member of, and you know, an elected official. And every trip we take. And every speech we give. And what we spend on advertising. What we spend on phone banks. All of that has got to be recorded. And obviously, it becomes public.

And so the Senate then gets into the affairs of a nonprofit organization, which is simply trying to tell people what senators are doing.

COLMES: But this is the kind of transparency, Dr. Dobson, that I thought Republicans and Democrats together were fighting for. And as I understand it, only those who qualify for disclosure under the Lobbying Disclosure Act would be required to provide grassroots lobbying information, something you must already qualify for.

So this is not yet another hurdle. It's a hurdle you've already met, and this is indeed, transparency.

DOBSON: We do not have any obligation to tell the Senate when I go on the air to say, let me tell you what is going on in Washington. Let me tell about this bill that's about to be voted on. I've never had accountability to the Senate for saying that. That's free speech. The people have a right to know it. And I have a right to tell them what I know. And it is unconscionable.

COLMES: I just want to understand, though. In 220, you're suggesting that even though it doesn't say in that legislation that free speech would be compromised, you're believing the judges would interpret it that way. There's no evidence, based on the legislation itself, that free speech would be compromised, based on the wording that we showed you on the screen just now.

DOBSON: Well, I don't know what you showed on the screen just now. But I know the lawyers have gone over this from one end of the other. They tell us, this is an impingement upon the rights of individuals like us to tell people what is going on in Washington.

We need more accountability for our elected officials. Not less. And this will limit it and cost a ton of money and invade free speech.

COLMES: Dr. Dobson, thanks for being with us. Appreciate your doing that.