To borrow a riff from Glenn Reynolds: They said that with George Bush as President, members of Congress would be muzzled and forced to communicate with their constituents only through approved channels and they were right!
It looks like Nancy Pelosi an…

These Fascists won’t be happy until all of life in the USA is lived like a continual game of “Mother May I?” played with a malevolent, meddling government.

…and even then they won’t be happy!

As I understand it, the current issue initially arose as a technical problem. Congress provides & maintains official websites for its members, and thus has an interest in preventing the same kind of potential abuses of subsidized communications that existed with free mass mailings. As official, tax payer supported, organs of government, there is a justifiable need to distinguish between official government information/content — upon which constituents should be able to rely — and partisan political content & funding which, again, amounts to subsidizing incumbent campaigns. Maintaining such distinctions — and its own organ’s reputation as a reliable source — is why exit notices on links to external sites, for example, are required.

It appears that Congressional web sites cannot independently support video, which makes external linking a virtual necessity, bringing with it messy prospect of apparent government endorsements and/or patronage by default. Unfortunately, devising and maintaining a list of officially approved exgternal sites does nothing to solve the endorsement problem, and indeed, may actually exacerbate it, while simultaneously opening up a clear opportunity for partisan abuse. It would seem to me that upgrading Congressional servers is an obvious and preferable.

If the regulations being discussed apply to all Congressional communications, as opposed to government sponsored and funded communications alone, then it’s a different issue entirely. Nota Bene, Ed: You seem to be implying the former, and I believe a clarification is definitely in order here. You also refer to an otherwise unidentified “Feinstein proposal” as described by an anonymous, clearly partisan, source. That’s a disappointingly sketchy basis for soliciting an email assault.

Since taking control of congress, what have anti-surge traitors Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi accomplished??? The house is still dirty, and the senate has been FUBAR!

And let’s not forget Feinstein’s other policy goal — re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine. Hmmmm. Can we detect a pattern here?

I have never found out this answer…why has not Feinstein been investigated for dishing out sweetheart contracts to her husband’s companies?
Now I know right after that, she shut up about the Bush Administration, and has been basically not attacking Bush. Was there a deal made? That she back off and sit down, for no investigation?
Any other person would have been tried and convicted for what she did…at least investigated by a committee, she blatantly gave contracts to her husbands businesses.
Yet not a peep, from congress or the MSM…nothing.

The Congressional Democrat Marxists are having problems with making their environmental Marxism stick with the folks with all the blabbing going on.

Communism was never compatible with free expression and liberty. Once the Soviet Union became over populated with fax machines and auto dialing trees, the end was written in stone.

Same here, no answer, I wonder why?

After pushing for re-establishment of the Fascist Fairness Doctrine, Dianne Feinstein now seeks to gag critics within Congress. It’s liberal fascism on the march.

I sent the Senator an email from her site, but received an out-of-state reply. Hope someone will read it.

greenLibertarian on July 9, 2008 at 3:09 AM

My email to Sen. Feinstein would not go through after many attempts so I will add it here in case any of her staff readthe writings of ordinary citizens.

Any effort to block free communication is a disservice to our nation. I personally have tried to Email a representative not from my district and I am barred from doing so because I ;ive inthe wrong zip code. My efforts to email Nancy Pelosi were also blocked. I cannot afford long distance service on my phone.

Pat in NC on July 9, 2008 at 9:17 AM

Same here. Happened to me frequently during the amnesty debate. I couldn’t even email my own Senator, Hillary. I thought that took the cake. What arrogance!

What I ended up doing was to used any real address from within the district or state of the rep you wish to contact, and entered that. Then be upfront in the email that you’re from out-of-state and had no other way to reach them. At least, it will be read and not automatically returned by machine.

Millions of us share your frustration… Pork is the main culprit Curtis; these Congress critters feed their people on a steady diet of pork, and the people keep coming back to the table for more of it. Our tax dollars being used for all of the wrong reasons.

The problem is that when you ask people how congress is doing, you get the 9% number.
When you ask them how their congressman is doing, they reply, Great.

It’s kind of like, everyone I know is employed and doing well, but the economy’s in the tank.

You and all in Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. This Constitution includes the right to free speech. Your efforts to control where our Congress members may communicate flies in the face of the Constitution you vowed to support. Any effort to block free communication is a disservice to our nation. I personally have tried to Email a representative not from my district and I am barred from doing so because I ;ive inthe wrong zip code. My efforts to email Nancy Pelosi were also blocked. I cannot afford long distance service on my phone. I could write letters but as a handicapped senior citizen this is not easily done. The so called Fairness Doctine is an attempt to silence people instead of encouraging interest in the affairs of our nation. Are you afraid of people finding out truth about the inefficiency and uncaring attitudes of our elected politicians?
The current Congress has an approval rating of 9%. Do any of you wonder why you are held in such low esteem? Congress members appear to think they are superior to the citizens who elect them. They appear power hungry for their personal benefit and forget they were elected to serve for the benefit of the nation and all citizens. Congressional leadership promised a more ethical Congress in 2006. What a disappointment you have been.