« Attorney shoots self in foot in court | Main | Funny read, from the Chi Tribune »
DISCLOSE bill and NRA
A few months ago, the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on corporations airing campaign ads (or anything mentioning a candidate's name, including an ad that suggests asking him to do something). The powers that be started pushing a bill, DISCLOSE, which would make these now-lawful ad expenditures a bit more burdensome.
The House leadership tried to smooth its passage with a provision that exempts NRA and a few other large advocacy groups (requirements include having more than a million dues-paying members, and no more than a small percent of income from corporate entities). NRA indicated it would have no dog in the fight if the bill did not cover it. This predictably led to some accusations of "selling out."
Personally -- in a chess game this complicated, Murphy's Law and the rule of unintended consequences begin to play major roles, and any tactic that complicates the opposition's situation makes both more prominent and is thus a good move. So far--
1) Public Interest Research Group, National Right to Life Committee and Sierra Club oppose the bill -- I assume because they are subject to it and NRA would not be.
2) Brady Campaign is angry as well: "he special treatment for the NRA "is exactly why Americans are so turned off by politics and cynical about Congress," Paul Helmke said in a telephone interview. "It makes no sense at all when you say you're concerned about the role that money plays in politics.""
3) The new opposition has "left the fate of the legislation in doubt. "
4) If it survives, and is challenged in court, the situation is likewise complicated. "Counsel -- you say this statute serves a compelling governmental interest, in mandating disclosure of corporate involvement in politics -- yet it exempts the biggest corporations from its scope. So involvement of corporations is suspicious, but involvement of really big corporations is not?"
UPDATE: here's Brady Campaign's Dennis Henigan on it: "It’s now clear that the Democratic leadership in Congress has turned the reins of power over to the National Rifle Association." "a stunning act of craven appeasement," " legislative hostage-taking," "It is gratifying to see the growing list of progressive groups that have joined the opposition to this cynical Democratic House sell-out. " I think he's a little upset.
· NRA
8 Comments | Leave a comment
On this one, I’m leaning towards the analysis on Snowflakes in Hell. The NRA’s primary concern is the Second Amendment. The First Amendment is its tool, and it secured the use of its tool.
What happens beyond that is not the NRA’s problem! They will go back to concentrating on Second Amendment issues. If some First Amendment group doesn’t like it then let them fight it out with Congress...the NRA has more important Second Amendment things to do.
And it's worth noting that the Brady Campaign had no problem with DISCLOSE when they thought it was going to bell the cat. Now the mice are angry.
Any deal with Obama is a deal with the devil amd we all know how those turn out. Please drop discloosure deal or I will have to review my membership. The NRA should not play politics and tell Congress if they want to mess with the constitution they have to get the people to change it for them.
The NRA should not play politics
Sounds like a winning strategy to me!
No, the NRA is flat wrong on this.
To accept a deal that protects "their free speech" is a craven, despicable act of cowardice.
Please note, I'm a 40+ year Life Member.
NRA may be a "single issue" organization, and I don't expect them to look for free speech issues tot jump into.
But, I do expect them to have integrity to ALL the BoR.
In this instance they should have said no deal. Taking a deal to protect the NRA's ability to defend the 2nd is a Faustian bargain with the devil and it suggests that they don't hold to principle very well.
Plus, their critics can argue (and are) that NRA is colluding with the devil to stifle 2A advocacy competition. I don't think they are doing that, but who knows, maybe they are.
If they don't change their stance (or if this bill ultimately goes down and they ever do something like this again) they may lose me as a Life Member.
The NRA is saying there was no deal...got a private email from NRA-ILA and PVF, which I'll share when I get home tonite.
Scott,
The experience of AZCDL and various other state specific gun rights organizations would seem to support the opinion that the NRA is stifling competing gun advocacy groups.
Helmke is upset because the NRA was given consideration? He was not too concerned about using his groups influence to force the FDA to withdraw the "medical device" classification of my handgun designed for handicapped. But we already know he is a hypocrit.