Accept federal money, lose free speech?

Should private sector groups (e.g., behavioral health care providers) that receive Federal government funds (e.g., grants) to provide services or conduct research forfeit their right to comment on government programs or legislation? If Congressman Ernest Jim Istook, Jr., gets his way, the answer will be a resounding "Yes!" His "Bill to Stop Taxpayer Funded Political Advocacy" would effectively force behavioral health care providers to choose between rejecting publicly-funded patients or accepting limits on their ability to influence government actions. The bill, already passed in the House version of the 1996 health and human services appropriation, would at least ration the ability of many behavioral health care providers to comment on legislation, administration regulations, and even certain types of litigation.

Although only in his second term in Washington, Istook is hardly a minor player in Congress. Amazingly, he is the most senior Republican member of Oklahoma's delegation to the House of Representatives and already vice-chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Istook is viewed as the likely successor to more moderate Illinois congressman John Porter as chair of the subcommittee, if the Republicans retain control of the House in next year's elections. As such, he is part of the inner circle of southern and western conservatives, led by Robert Livingston of Louisiana, who have pushed major cuts in Federal funding for behavioral health care.

Istook is not satisfied with merely cutting the Federal budget for behavioral health. He believes that grants to the behavioral health care and prevention field are used to fund liberal lobbying for even more government spending. "One large problem," Istook said, "is groups using Federal grants to cover their routine costs, and therefore freeing up their own money to lobby. In fact, it's doubtful that some groups would even exist without government funding."

In press releases, Istook claims to be angry only about groups that pose as charities but in fact conduct lobbying or policy advocacy. "Congress has the responsibility to separate true charities from political action groups," he explained. "Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to sponsor lobbying groups which disguise themselves as nonprofits." The legislation that Istook co-authored with congressmen David McIntosh (R-Indiana) and Bob Ehrlich (R-Maryland) does not, in fact, discriminate between nonprofits and profit-making firms. The proposed restrictions would apply to any organizations or individuals who receive revenue from the Federal government. The restrictions also would apply to vendors who provided services to state or local governments that were financed in part by a Federal block grant.