The Disclose Act (HR 5175) and NRA Hypocrisy

[TomR]

Democrats in the House have introduced "The Disclose Act" to reverse the Supreme Court's recent decision which found provisions of campaign finance reform to be unconstitutional because political speech was restricted. The NRA originally opposed the Disclose Act because it would limit their freedom of speech but later changed their position when the bill was amended to exempt the NRA from it's provisions. Their current position is that they will not be involved with the bill either in support or opposition (https://secure.nraila.org/Contact.aspx). I called NRA-ILA to express my displeasure. I was told that the NRA was a single issue organization and they would not get involved in 1st amendment issues. I pointed out that they had gotten involved when their 1st amendment rights were being restricted. What hypocrisy. As long as the NRA's freedom of speech is not restricted, to hell with the constitutional rights of everybody else. I have contributed to the NRA-ILA in the past but will not in the future. I will support organizations that defend the entire constitution and the constitutional rights of all Americans.

[daddyo]

I read about this a couple of days ago. I will NOT be renewing my NRA membership.

[Falcon1]

Politico is reporting that Pelosi has pulled it:

Nancy Pelosi yanks campaign finance bill - John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

[Falcon1]

Politico is reporting that Pelosi has pulled it:

Nancy Pelosi yanks campaign finance bill - John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

[daddyo]

Politico is reporting that Pelosi has pulled it:

Nancy Pelosi yanks campaign finance bill - John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

That's good, but it doesn't change the fact that the NRA sold out.

[ttocswob]

The CBC, (Congressional Black Caucus) on the other hand, was unhappy about an exemption to the bill granted to the National Rifle Association agreed to by Van Hollen. While the exemption was later extended to other groups, the CBC remained concerned about the bill’s potential impact on the NAACP and other progressive groups.

If this thing stays dead, it may be NRA 'support' that killed it.

[JayC]

It's time for a change at the NRA- and the NRA-ILA... anybody know anybody about how members of the NRA board are appointed or elected? It's time for us to change the organization from within or exit stage left.

Democrats in the House have introduced "The Disclose Act" to reverse the Supreme Court's recent decision which found provisions of campaign finance reform to be unconstitutional because political speech was restricted. The NRA originally opposed the Disclose Act because it would limit their freedom of speech but later changed their position when the bill was amended to exempt the NRA from it's provisions. Their current position is that they will not be involved with the bill either in support or opposition (https://secure.nraila.org/Contact.aspx). I called NRA-ILA to express my displeasure. I was told that the NRA was a single issue organization and they would not get involved in 1st amendment issues. I pointed out that they had gotten involved when their 1st amendment rights were being restricted. What hypocrisy. As long as the NRA's freedom of speech is not restricted, to hell with the constitutional rights of everybody else. I have contributed to the NRA-ILA in the past but will not in the future. I will support organizations that defend the entire constitution and the constitutional rights of all Americans.

[leroy]

If this thing stays dead, it may be NRA 'support' that killed it.

I suspect that what you have opined is exactly what has happened. I wouldn’t beat up the NRA too much on this. The organization is, in fact, called the National Rifle Association; not the National Bill of Rights Organization. I can assure you that fear of the NRA stifles lots of other attacks on the Bill of Rights. We, the people, are responsible to protect all rights when we vote.

Check this out:

Setting The Record Straight On The “DISCLOSE Actâ€

Friday, June 18, 2010

We appreciate the concerns some NRA members have raised about our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.†Unfortunately, the mainstream media and other critics of NRA’s role in this process have misstated or misunderstood the facts. We’d like to set the record straight.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).

Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members’ right to privacy and freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The introduced version of the bill would also have prohibited political speech by all federal government contractors. The NRA has contracts to provide critical firearm training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The bill would have forced us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refused to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We told Congress we opposed the bill. Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House. If it doesn’t, we will strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn’t happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say—unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a non-partisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That’s their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.

Today, the fate of the bill remains in doubt. The House floor debate has repeatedly been postponed. Lawmakers and outside groups who once supported the bill, or took no position—including the Brady Campaign—have now come out against it because of the announcement regarding NRA. The outcome in the Senate is even murkier, as anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has announced her strong opposition to the proposed change.

No matter what may happen now, NRA members can be assured that protection of gun owners’ interests will remain NRA’s top priority. Please check in regularly at www.nraila.org for the latest news on this issue.

Link here: NRA-ILA :: Setting The Record Straight On The

The NRA is probably the best friend we gun owners (...and others who love liberty...) have at this juncture in history. Be careful what you choose to believe.

Finally; I would ask that you remember two things: First, both political parties are afraid of the NRA. That is a good thing in today's political climate. Secondly, The Second Amendment secures all the other Amendments; especially the First. If you are not an armed society; the government can and will take any “Freedom†that they choose to take away. Without the ‘right to bear arms†you are a serf; subject to the whim and will of the government. You can rest assured that without arms, the government will not respect you nor listen to your First Amendment speeches.

Hope this helps.

Leroy

[mikegideon]

I suspect that what you have opined is exactly what has happened. I wouldn’t beat up the NRA too much on this. The organization is, in fact, called the National Rifle Association; not the National Bill of Rights Organization. I can assure you that fear of the NRA stifles lots of other attacks on the Bill of Rights. We, the people, are responsible to protect all rights when we vote.

Check this out:

Link here: NRA-ILA :: Setting The Record Straight On The

The NRA is probably the best friend we gun owners (...and others who love liberty...) have at this juncture in history. Be careful what you choose to believe.

Finally; I would ask that you remember two things: First, both political parties are afraid of the NRA. That is a good thing in today's political climate. Secondly, The Second Amendment secures all the other Amendments; especially the First. If you are not an armed society; the government can and will take any “Freedom†that they choose to take away. Without the ‘right to bear arms†you are a serf; subject to the whim and will of the government. You can rest assured that without arms, the government will not respect you nor listen to your First Amendment speeches.

Hope this helps.

Leroy

+1

[eapking]

+1 on Mike's +1. The NRA is not so self serving as to just ask to have themselves taken out of this. The politicians exempted the NRA all by themselves. Sure the NRA objected to this, but they were against this whole bill, not just escaping from it themselves. As said above...all politicians fear the NRA, which is just fine by me.

[StPatrick]

The killing of this bill is either a happy accident of democrat pandering, or a VERY shrewd play by NRA (I'm voting for option #1), but either way, the DISCLOSE act is DOA just in time for elections in the fall. With the rift between blue dogs and the CBC / liberal wing of the caucus, this bill will not be haunting the country again in the current congressional session.

That said, depending on election results, we may end up with a kamikaze dem congress that pushes the left's agenda (including this bill, cap and tax, and card-check) with votes from soon-to-be-unemployed incumbents, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

[eapking]

I agree St.Pat, the Big O will round up all his lame ducks for a full court press before they're tossed out this fall. God willing he will never have control of either house again.

[leroy]

I agree St.Pat, the Big O will round up all his lame ducks for a full court press before they're tossed out this fall. God willing he will never have control of either house again.

I think there is some possibility of "the full-court press" too; but it will most likely suicidal for most of the participants. If they do, however, the next congress will most likely undo it; or they will be voted out too. Folks are mad about this stuff; and it's high time they got that way.

Keep up the good work.

Kind regards,

Leroy

[I_Like_Pie]

I wish you dingbats would make up your mind. Heck just last month everyone here was chastising those who weren't NRA members. Now we are somehow on the wrong side of the fence if we do. Must everything be so black and white....Really?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Like they haven't been full court pressing the whole

time.

[9teeneleven]

The email I got today is the nail in the coffin. It began:

"I appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you'll allow me to provide the proper context.

The U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution."

Recently, with Citizens United, the Supreme court ruled THE biggest attack on free speech in the history of the US. The decision was based upon the flawed metaphor "the market of ideas." It works as a metaphor until you forget that metaphors connect two different concepts: money and speech. However, money is not speech. Money is the tool of capitalism; speech is the tool of democracy. As much as in the past few years many have attempted to conflate capitalism and democracy, they are not the same thing. I glad I know where the NRA stands on the 1st amendment; they are willing to throw it under the bus in the name of defending the second amendment. The other problem is that the NRA seems more interested these days in selling me life insurance, a credit card, and a sweater with the NRA logo on it than actually defending the 2a.

Edited June 20, 2010 by 9teeneleven

[Guest TnRebel]

get it all in there !

************************************************************************************************

Statement From NRA-ILA Executive Director

Chris W. Cox On H.R. 5175, The "DISCLOSE Act"

I appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you'll allow me to provide the proper context.

The U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution. The NRA filed a strong brief in that case, which the Court specifically cited several times in its opinion. The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to reverse that victory and that's why we told Congress we oppose it.

The NRA has never supported -- nor would we ever support -- any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong.

The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization. My job is to ensure they don't apply to the NRA and our members. Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.

We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That's easy to say -- unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.

The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together. For example, we didn't support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it backed amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President Obama's stimulus bill. And we've been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible parking lots.

Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress's unconstitutional attack on free speech. That's a shame. If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you.

Statement From David Keene, NRA First

Vice-President On H.R. 5175, The "DISCLOSE Act"

I have been an NRA Board member for some years and currently serve as NRA's First Vice-President -- that you may know. What you may not know is that I have been in the forefront of the fight against liberal attempts to tilt the political playing field their way for decades through what they like to call campaign finance reform. This is a battle that began in the seventies when I put together the case that went to the United States Supreme Court known as Buckley v. Valeo. I was a vocal opponent of the so-called McCain-Feingold "reforms" that shackled groups like the NRA in recent years, and I have served as a First Amendment Fellow at Vanderbilt University's Freedom Forum.

I can assure you that I would never countenance a "deal" of the sort you think the NRA made with Congress to further Democratic attempts to restrict political speech. I consider such restrictions to be not only repugnant, but blatantly unconstitutional, an opinion shared by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox.

The so-called "DISCLOSE ACT" is a horrible piece of legislation designed to do exactly what you suggest. It would require advocacy groups to run a regulatory gauntlet designed to make it very difficult for many of them to play the role for which they were formed and is both bad policy and flies in the face of recent Supreme Court decisions.

But I'm afraid there's more . particularly how it would affect the NRA. When you think of the NRA you no doubt think mostly about the NRA's advocacy on Second Amendment issues, but the NRA also provides training to its members, law enforcement and military personnel, works with states, counties and private organizations to build ranges and runs competitive events such as those at Camp Perry in Ohio. Since Camp Perry is a military base, public monies go into range development and federal funds go to training military and police personnel, the NRA would be classed with government contractors and TARP recipients under the DISCLOSE ACT as originally written and effectively prohibited from engaging in any meaningful political activity.

In other words, this act as originally written by anti-gun legislators like New York Senator Chuck Schumer would have silenced the NRA .which would have been the death knell for the Second Amendment.

NRA has one major mission . to defend the right of its members and all Americans to Keep & Bear Arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Therefore, the NRA served notice on Congress that since the act threatened our very existence, we were prepared to do anything and everything that might be required to defeat it unless it was changed so that we could continue to represent the views of our members in the public arena. The letter, sent on May 26, was public. The NRA did not engage in back room shenanigans, but told Congressional leaders quite clearly that we would do whatever we needed to do to protect the rights of our members and our ability to defend the Second Amendment.

Last week Democratic leadership in the House capitulated by agreeing to exempt the NRA from the act -- not in return for NRA support, but to avoid a political war that might cost them even more seats this fall.

I have to tell you that I never thought the Democrats would agree to this -- not because they have much regard for constitutional rights -- because I didn't believe their left wing would allow it. The events since their capitulation convince me that their fear of NRA retaliation forced them to take steps that split their coalition and could easily doom the whole bill.

Consider this: on Thursday night, California Senator Diane Feinstein, one of the most anti-Second Amendment members of the Senate, announced that she wouldn't support the DISCLOSE ACT if it exempted the NRA. By Friday some two-dozen left wing activist groups that had previously been pressing Congress to pass the bill announced that now they wanted it defeated.

The bottom line is that in refusing to risk its members' rights and the very survival of the Second Amendment, the NRA has also made it less rather than more likely that support for this terrible legislation will collapse and the free speech rights of every one of us will benefit.

[mikegideon]

Thank you!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I got that email, too. It looks to me like they were playing one against the other and it

worked, for the meantime. Good move!