• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican Congress wants to pass bill imposing 5000 fee for free speech

RogueWarrior

RogueWarrior

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Messages
4,824
Reaction score
6,352
Location
Atheist Utopia aka Reality
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
House To Vote On Bill That Would Impose $5,000 Fee For Protesting Drilling Projects
The House is likely to vote on a number of GOP bills this week related to the oil and gas industry, arguably the most sweeping of which is the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), is broad legislation designed to make it much easier for oil and gas companies to obtain permission to drill on public lands. If signed into law, the legislation would automatically approve onshore drilling permits if the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) failed to act on them in 60 days.
If an individual does not like a proposed drilling project and wanted to oppose it, he or she would have to pay a $5,000 fee to file an official protest.
Click to expand...

Land of the Free my Posterior

Corporate States of America bought and paid for by your local conglomerate.
 
specklebang said:
In view of the blatant unconstitutionality of this concept, I wouldn't worry much about passage. Do you realize that every day a few nutty bills are introduced? The only ones that matter and pass are the ones that profit the connected.
Click to expand...

Just want to see who in Congress would even vote for this!!!
 
RogueWarrior said:
House To Vote On Bill That Would Impose $5,000 Fee For Protesting Drilling Projects


Land of the Free my Posterior

Corporate States of America bought and paid for by your local conglomerate.
Click to expand...

It might be worth noting that the $5k fee is applicable to formal protests of drilling or mining lease applications and that it makes perfect sense. There is no fee associated with standing around in a drum circle holding signs.
CHAPTER 2—ADMINISTRATIVE PROTEST DOCUMENTATION REFORMSEC. 1121. Administrative protest documentation reform.
Section 17(p) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(p)) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
“(4) PROTEST FEE.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall collect a $5,000 documentation fee to accompany each protest for a lease, right of way, or application for permit to drill.
“(B) TREATMENT OF FEES.—Of all fees collected under this paragraph, 50 percent shall remain in the field office where they are collected and used to process protests subject to appropriation.”.
Click to expand...

<enum>I</enum> <header>Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security</header> <section id="H00B9F0874227496AA16A34C7374F8165" section-type="subsequent-section"> <enum>1001.</enum> <header>Short title</header> <text display-inline="no-display-inline">This ti
 
specklebang said:
In view of the blatant unconstitutionality of this concept, I wouldn't worry much about passage. Do you realize that every day a few nutty bills are introduced? The only ones that matter and pass are the ones that profit the connected.
Click to expand...

I doubt it is unConstitutional. It likely is a small part of the actual appeals process cost to the tax payer.
 
Fisher said:
I doubt it is unConstitutional. It likely is a small part of the actual appeals process cost to the tax payer.
Click to expand...

Free speech costs $5,000.00. You don't see a flaw there?

There are some permitting processes that are reasonable due to security costs. But a large flat fee to object to one specific topic seems a bit....well....unconstitutional to me albeit my cred as a Constitutional scholar is one on a scale of ten.
 
specklebang said:
Free speech costs $5,000.00. You don't see a flaw there?

There are some permitting processes that are reasonable due to security costs. But a large flat fee to object to one specific topic seems a bit....well....unconstitutional to me albeit my cred as a Constitutional scholar is one on a scale of ten.
Click to expand...

That's not what the proposal says at all.

Applicants for a drilling or mining lease on federal lands are required to pay a $6500 application fee. If someone wants to file a legal protest against that lease then they are required to remit a $5000 document fee. What this does is put all parties on the same playing field by making it cost something (and a rather nominal "something" at that) to formally protest the lease. If you want to informally protest the lease by chaining yourself to a tree or something there is no fee for that.
 
Lutherf said:
That's not what the proposal says at all.

Applicants for a drilling or mining lease on federal lands are required to pay a $6500 application fee. If someone wants to file a legal protest against that lease then they are required to remit a $5000 document fee. What this does is put all parties on the same playing field by making it cost something (and a rather nominal "something" at that) to formally protest the lease. If you want to informally protest the lease by chaining yourself to a tree or something there is no fee for that.
Click to expand...

I'm too close to dead to care if they frack the whole country from California to the New York harbor.

So, from now on, anybody that objects to anything should pay a fee to object that is similar to the fee paid by the objectionable one? C'mon, be serious. If you sue a hospital, will you have to put up what they spent to build it? This seems to be cozy protection for an already well pampered industry, nothing more.
 
specklebang said:
Free speech costs $5,000.00. You don't see a flaw there?

There are some permitting processes that are reasonable due to security costs. But a large flat fee to object to one specific topic seems a bit....well....unconstitutional to me albeit my cred as a Constitutional scholar is one on a scale of ten.
Click to expand...

Free speech doesn't cost anything. Filing a formal appeal requiring hearings and investigations and lawyers and officials and stuff isn't "speech" and requires payment of a fee just like a building permit, a demolition permit, or any host of government processes requires.
 
Fisher said:
Free speech doesn't cost anything. Filing a formal appeal requiring hearings and investigations and lawyers and officials and stuff isn't "speech" and requires payment of a fee just like a building permit, a demolition permit, or any host of government processes requires.
Click to expand...

...and this requires an Act Of Congress because? The lawyers don't charge enough?
 
specklebang said:
...and this requires an Act Of Congress because? The lawyers don't charge enough?
Click to expand...

Call it a tax if it helps you sleep at night. The Supreme Court says as long as you call it a tax, anything unConstitutional becomes Constitutional.
 
Fisher said:
Call it a tax if it helps you sleep at night. The Supreme Court says as long as you call it a tax, anything unConstitutional becomes Constitutional.
Click to expand...

And everything is interstate commerce no matter how much it isn't.
 
specklebang said:
I'm too close to dead to care if they frack the whole country from California to the New York harbor.

So, from now on, anybody that objects to anything should pay a fee to object that is similar to the fee paid by the objectionable one? C'mon, be serious. If you sue a hospital, will you have to put up what they spent to build it? This seems to be cozy protection for an already well pampered industry, nothing more.
Click to expand...

What they are talking about is a LEGAL PROTEST. I don't know how I can explain it any better.

Let's try this....one of the residents in the neighborhood where your rental property is takes opposition to a prospective tenant so they file a protest in an attempt to get you to void the application. You have to file an application fee of $6500 with the city but the protester gets to file his protest for free. Does that seem fair?
 
Fisher said:
Call it a tax if it helps you sleep at night. The Supreme Court says as long as you call it a tax, anything unConstitutional becomes Constitutional.
Click to expand...

My sleeping patterns are just fine. But I don't see that just anything can be called a tax so casually.
 
Its not free speech - those who want to oppose it have every right to speak. Those who want to go before a commission and have a hearing need to pay for it. Maybe that will end the frivolous crap that goes on in commissions and boards around the country that hinder jobs at the bequest of eco terrorist nutt jobs.


specklebang said:
Free speech costs $5,000.00. You don't see a flaw there?

There are some permitting processes that are reasonable due to security costs. But a large flat fee to object to one specific topic seems a bit....well....unconstitutional to me albeit my cred as a Constitutional scholar is one on a scale of ten.
Click to expand...
 
Lutherf said:
What they are talking about is a LEGAL PROTEST. I don't know how I can explain it any better.

Let's try this....one of the residents in the neighborhood where your rental property is takes opposition to a prospective tenant so they file a protest in an attempt to get you to void the application. You have to file an application fee of $6500 with the city but the protester gets to file his protest for free. Does that seem fair?
Click to expand...

If my rental property was a $650M property and I had to pay this, yes.

This isn't a general principle. This is pretty specific and thats why the analogy (?) really doesn't work. As long as this is not a nuisance lawsuit, there are plenty of expenses even the most ethcal protestor would have to pay. Why should I get special protection for my $650M property?

Don't get frustrated with me. We're discussing this to understand it better and my first reaction is that this is prejudicial because it affects just one industry. If I'm wrong - and god knows I've been wrong more that 650 times in my life - then why am I wrong?
 
CalGun said:
Its not free speech - those who want to oppose it have every right to speak. Those who want to go before a commission and have a hearing need to pay for it. Maybe that will end the frivolous crap that goes on in commissions and boards around the country that hinder jobs at the bequest of eco terrorist nutt jobs.
Click to expand...

So, should that apply to everything or just things that you support? It's fine with me as long as it isn't just a political favor for a particular industry.

How about people objecting to abortion laws? $5000. Object to Obamacare? $5000. See the problem?
 
RogueWarrior said:
House To Vote On Bill That Would Impose $5,000 Fee For Protesting Drilling Projects[/URL][/B]


Land of the Free my Posterior

.
Click to expand...

Now, don't be silly. This is not a fee on protesting - like, people with placards chanting, or writing op-eds in local papers - it is a fee to be submitted with an official protest to be reviewed and processed by the Bureau of Land Management. Reviewing and processing costs money. There's no reason for the taxpayer-at-large to foot the bill for every crank who doesn't want people working on something in this neck of woods.

I am not saying it is good bill - it may be a bad or unnecessary one. Wish I had time to pore through it - or any expertise in the issues involved. But asking for a fee when government is dealing with your requests is a standard procedure. We pay for getting our passports, license plates; the FDA is mostly supported by fees drug companies pay to make the review of their clinical data happen, etc, etc.
 
If you want a public hearing in front of a board, commission, council or judge ( which requires agenda setting, public notices, a staff report) then pay for it or STFU and enjoy your FREE public comment or send a letter voicing your opine (also free). Why is that so hard to grasp?


specklebang said:
So, should that apply to everything or just things that you support? It's fine with me as long as it isn't just a political favor for a particular industry.

How about people objecting to abortion laws? $5000. Object to Obamacare? $5000. See the problem?
Click to expand...
 
Did you read my last response or are we arguing for the sake of argument. I don't have a problem with a rule that applies to everyone. If from now on it costs $5K to object to commercial interests, that makes perfect sense. I don't think one industry should have protections the rest of us don't have. Is there some flaw in my reasoning?
 
RogueWarrior said:
House To Vote On Bill That Would Impose $5,000 Fee For Protesting Drilling Projects


Land of the Free my Posterior

Corporate States of America bought and paid for by your local conglomerate.
Click to expand...

why not take your bicycle everywhere as a f u to the man? f oil right?

you act as if you OWN the oil corp

you dont

buy or dont buy

yes end corp welafre but also end corp taxes and cap gain taxes and usless lawyers sucking bs lawsuit money outa corps

replace lawyers with software

then stop blocking atomic power

atomic pwoer fuel cells and sea water broken into o and h2 already coulda diaplaced oil if dems not block it screaming
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom