I was probably unclear in my original message and, if so, I apologize.  I
didn't mean to suggest in any way that government grant funds should ever
be used for lobbying.  As Mr. Hawks points out, it is illegal to use
federal funds for that purpose.

The point in opposing the Istook amendment is that it defines use of
*any* funds to procure *any* goods or service from a "15 percenter" as
lobbying.  If you use your own funds to purchase cleaning supplies from a
vendor who happens to lobby on OSHA issues, that purchase is defined as
advocacy, and you have to report it as such to granters, even if you
undertake no other "advocacy" activities.  Or as I prefer to call them,
"non-advocacy advocacy" activities.

We believe that the current regulatory enforcement is sufficient to
ensure that federal funds are not used for improper purposes, and that
the Istook amendment would impose an unworkable and unbelievably
intrusive regime if enacted.

Andy Finch
AAM Government Affairs
[log in to unmask]


On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Nmhm Afip wrote:

>      I was interested in Mr. Finch's comments about the Istook Amendment
>      and I agree that the paperwork would be burdonsome.  I am not sure how
>      enforcable that act would be. (Perhaps AAM would run ads stating
>      "Certified non-15%-er vendor.")
>
>      HOWEVER, I also see that the congress's point of view.  If an
>      organization takes money from the government, it has an obligation to
>      spend it for the purpose it was intended ...