There are innumerable issues with this proposal, and I don't have time to go into all of them, so I'll focus on just a few, beginning with this change in definitions:
1) "The NPS proposes to streamline these regulations by defining the term “events,” which would mean both demonstrations and special events, as those terms are defined in sections 2.50 and 2.51"
Demonstrations and special events, as they're currently defined ARE and SHOULD REMAIN separate entities. Demonstrations involve protected speech and are a vital part of the political process, while special events are, essentially, entertainment. The suggestion in the wording of this document, that because demonstrations can potentially be entertaining they should be treated identically, is patentently ridiculous. They were originally listed separately for good reasons, and those reasons haven't changed.
2) There should be NO fees for demonstrations - the current regulations have this right and should not be altered.
Money is the currency of power, while demonstrations are the last civil recourse of the powerless. Those with the least money have the most pressing need to voice their grievances, and "indigency waivers" are NOT an acceptable solution. The rich would be unaffected - paying such fees without difficulty, while the poor would be forced to grovel and beg, reveal their income and tax history, and (should their indigency waiver be denied after the fact), risk financial hardship in order to exercise their right to demonstrate. At that point, it's no longer a right, but a privilege.
3) If you want to increase the maximum number of non-permitted demonstrators in various places as detailed in this proposal, have at it. I'm all for increasing the right of the public to demonstrate.
However, the proposed decreases and restrictions? Absolutely not.
If the Whitehouse finds it inconvenient to see protestors outside the window, the solution is not to remove the protestors, but to correct those things being protested.
And restricting protests around the various national monuments, under the claim that such places should be used for quiet contemplation...I find it particularly ironic that the Martin Luther King Jr. momument would be selected for this treatment. Who, more than MLK, would recognize the tremendous importance of having the unadulterated freedom to raise one's voice in protest?
4) Overall, this proposal is an abomination - an attempt to silence free speech under the guise of fianancial and security concerns. However, security hasn't been an issue in all the time such demonstrations have been going on. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and as far as finances are concerned, the NPS is paid for with tax dollars. If they're in need of additional financial resources, the solution isn't to make people pay for the privilege of exercising their rights, but to recieve adequate funding from the government that's been tasked with doing so. It's a government of the people and by the people, but most of all, it's supposed to be FOR the people. Otherwise, what use is it?