-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
NRA and Campaign Finance reform
- Thread starter RadiCS
- Start date
![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
There's an old exchange credited to Winston Churchill:
That pretty much sums up my opinion of most supposedly principle-driven political organizations such as the NRA. While they've all got their own agendas (some of which I support and others I oppose), it really all comes down to price with them.
Ken
That pretty much sums up my opinion of most supposedly principle-driven political organizations such as the NRA. While they've all got their own agendas (some of which I support and others I oppose), it really all comes down to price with them.
Ken
Acujeff
NES Member
STATEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13902
The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.
In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.
The NRA’s opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.
The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.
The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.
Thus, the NRA’s first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America’s lawful gun owners.
On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.
The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.
The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.
__________________
Get and stay informed with "The First Freedom" NRA monthly magazine (the most consistent in-depth reporting on gun issues, laws and politics).
Get NRA-ILA legislative and political RKBA e-mail alerts. Subscribe at http://www.nraila.org/
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13902
The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.
In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.
The NRA’s opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.
The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.
The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.
Thus, the NRA’s first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America’s lawful gun owners.
On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.
The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.
The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.
__________________
Get and stay informed with "The First Freedom" NRA monthly magazine (the most consistent in-depth reporting on gun issues, laws and politics).
Get NRA-ILA legislative and political RKBA e-mail alerts. Subscribe at http://www.nraila.org/
EC1
NES Member
I have written to them to express my disappointment with their stance. Don't know if it will mean anything but I do donate to the political victory fund. I added a quote from Ben Franklin that I thought was appropriate:
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately".
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately".
Because of this issue, this will be my last year as a member of the NRA.
It's asinine that they can be exempt while a smaller organization advocating for the exact same issues will be restricted.
They're whores.
It's asinine that they can be exempt while a smaller organization advocating for the exact same issues will be restricted.
They're whores.
Hmmm.... this somehow seems familiar.........
"The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the [STRIKE]political speech[/STRIKE] Second Ammendment rights of Americans are unconstitutional.
"On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like [STRIKE]the NRA[/STRIKE] the rich and powerful, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on [STRIKE]political speech[/STRIKE] firearms ownership. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the [STRIKE]NRA[/STRIKE] rich and powerful will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill."
THERE! Fixed it for them.
"The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the [STRIKE]political speech[/STRIKE] Second Ammendment rights of Americans are unconstitutional.
"On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like [STRIKE]the NRA[/STRIKE] the rich and powerful, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on [STRIKE]political speech[/STRIKE] firearms ownership. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the [STRIKE]NRA[/STRIKE] rich and powerful will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill."
THERE! Fixed it for them.
As a long time member I'm also becoming disgusted with the policies of the NRA. ![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/
The NRA lost me on principle a long time ago, but I continue to be a contributing member. Why? Because to me the NRA's purpose is not to stand for principle. Its purpose is to be a Damoclean sword hanging over the neck of any politician who dares to make a motion toward my gun, and it is very, very effective at that. It is the most powerful lobby in the world bar none. My contributions to the NRA are not charity. They are a ruthless, brutal act of self-defense.
You are sadly mistaken if you think they are the most powerful. Look at the record of increasing (until recently) restirictive gun laws. They cant even claim Heller was their doing. I do agree they serve a purpose but they are wiling to compromise as we saw in 1986. They might as well be absent in MASS and several other state where they should be fighting. Letting a toehold in only makes it worse for all of us IMO.
The bigger issue is not whether they have influence - they do.
The problem is how they use that influence does not further protection of our 2nd amendment rights...
Yeah well, simply lubricating the broom stick with which we have been raped since 1968 won't do any more. We actually need some help pulling it out now...
Good luck there - the NRA is a big ass broomstick.... I've be a warnin folks since 1986, but no one seemed to listen...
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,271
- Likes
- 184
Since when is the National Rifle Association supposed to take an active position on something that doesn't directly involve gun rights?
Does NARAL issue opinions about ANWR drilling? Does the AARP tell its members to vote in favor of sanctions on Iran?
I am all in favor of calling out the NRA on their compromising support of the second amendment, but why go after them for a non-gun issue?
Does NARAL issue opinions about ANWR drilling? Does the AARP tell its members to vote in favor of sanctions on Iran?
I am all in favor of calling out the NRA on their compromising support of the second amendment, but why go after them for a non-gun issue?
So we're supposed to throw the 1st Amendment to the wolves in the hope that the 2nd Amendment will be eaten last? How exactly is that better than my neighbor's plan of throwing the 2nd to the wolves in the hope that the 1st will be eaten last? What was that line about how we all need to hang together lest we all hang separately?
Ken
Ken
Last edited:
House Democrats' blasted, deal with the NRA on Disclose Act
Sen. Feinstein blasts House Democrats' deal with the NRA on Disclose Act
06/16/10
House Democratic leaders voiced confidence on Wednesday that they could secure the votes to pass a campaign finance bill in the coming days, even as the legislation faced an uncertain future in the Senate.
The Democratic leadership met for more than an hour on Wednesday with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who were concerned about an exemption granted to the National Rifle Association to keep the powerful gun lobby from opposing the bill. The provision would exempt the NRA from having to disclose its donors as part of the legislation, but it was so narrowly written that it would apply to few, if any, other advocacy groups.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/103547-feinstein-blasts-house-dems-deal-with-nra-on-disclose-act
Sen. Feinstein blasts House Democrats' deal with the NRA on Disclose Act
06/16/10
House Democratic leaders voiced confidence on Wednesday that they could secure the votes to pass a campaign finance bill in the coming days, even as the legislation faced an uncertain future in the Senate.
The Democratic leadership met for more than an hour on Wednesday with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who were concerned about an exemption granted to the National Rifle Association to keep the powerful gun lobby from opposing the bill. The provision would exempt the NRA from having to disclose its donors as part of the legislation, but it was so narrowly written that it would apply to few, if any, other advocacy groups.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/103547-feinstein-blasts-house-dems-deal-with-nra-on-disclose-act
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2009
- Messages
- 340
- Likes
- 31
I just joined GOAL. I was waiting to join when it was time to renew my NRA (so many orgs, it's easier for me to keep track of) but I don't think I'll be renewing my NRA membership now. Also this idiotic editorital (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/17/a_lethal_gun_battle/) helped speed up the decision.
update - also decided to go "green". I think I'll buy a rifle for father's day also (already cleared that with the wife)
update - also decided to go "green". I think I'll buy a rifle for father's day also (already cleared that with the wife)
Last edited:
Good news. Even better when this bill is totally dead. Here's a comment abouit it from the Shooting Wire:
Dirtypacman
NES Door Greeter
The NRA's PR stance and responses so far have been not so good. I think they really screwed the pooch on this one.
That being said keep fighting the good fight... we need everyone we can get.
That being said keep fighting the good fight... we need everyone we can get.
NRA and the Disclose Act
I am not happy with the NRA's stance on the Disclose Act. This is my message to them:
Your position on the Disclose Act is very shortsighted.
While it may not directly silence the NRA for now, it will silence other pro-freedom voices and give more advantage to groups that advocate expanded government power. When they have used their advantage to gain enough of a majority, they will inevitably return to this issue, because they hate the idea of ordinary people having any way to resist or limit government control.
1st Amendment rights are as vital as gun rights. Neither stands alone. Defending the 1st is an essential part of defending the 2nd.
I am not happy with the NRA's stance on the Disclose Act. This is my message to them:
Your position on the Disclose Act is very shortsighted.
While it may not directly silence the NRA for now, it will silence other pro-freedom voices and give more advantage to groups that advocate expanded government power. When they have used their advantage to gain enough of a majority, they will inevitably return to this issue, because they hate the idea of ordinary people having any way to resist or limit government control.
1st Amendment rights are as vital as gun rights. Neither stands alone. Defending the 1st is an essential part of defending the 2nd.
Well, the NRA might be one of the most VISIBLY powerful. Same goes for AARP.
The thing is, there are a lot of lobbies that are not as visible, but are extremely powerful. The Trial lawyers association is a perfect example- they basically exerted influence to have any notional of tort reform not enter the obamacare debate. Not even a crumb. Oil lobbies are huge as well, and various industries that use lots of illegal labor have a LOT of power. Union hacks are also powerful, too. Where were the insurance/hospitals on Obamacare? They were strangely absent from the debate- because they probably had already colluded with the government types involved to ensure they would profit regardless. The only ones who complained were the Doctors, as they'll ultimately get screwed out of the deal.
Sometimes power does not come from a formalized lobbying organization, but through connections between people. Yes, I realize this smells like tinfoiler crap, but individuals in power (especially old school establishment types who have been in office for a long time) have brushed hands (and traded favors with) with individuals that control a lot of money in this country. This is part of the reason why Obama constantly has the appearance of being a controlled puppet- he owes a lot of favors to the various visible and invisible hands that brought him into power.
These entities cross political boundaries, too. Al Gore at one time had profited big from Oil companies, among other things. When it comes to things that involve money politics become largely moot.
-Mike
Acujeff
NES Member
Setting The Record Straight On The “DISCLOSE Act”
Friday, June 18, 2010
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13920
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.
__________________
Get and stay informed with "The First Freedom" NRA monthly magazine (the most consistent in-depth reporting on gun issues, laws and politics).
Get NRA-ILA legislative and political RKBA e-mail alerts. Subscribe at http://www.nraila.org/
Friday, June 18, 2010
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13920
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.
__________________
Get and stay informed with "The First Freedom" NRA monthly magazine (the most consistent in-depth reporting on gun issues, laws and politics).
Get NRA-ILA legislative and political RKBA e-mail alerts. Subscribe at http://www.nraila.org/
Playing devils advocate here. Could it be that NRA agreed to this deal because they just knew that the rabid liberals would go absolutely "ballistic" (pun intended) when they learned about it and would kill the bill themselves?
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
!!
Acujeff
NES Member
Efforts to curb special interests in elections fizzle
By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY
June 22, 2010
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-06-21-campaign-spending-legislation_N.htm
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, has criticized campaign finance legislation championed by President Obama and other Democratic leaders. "All restriction on political speech is repugnant," he said.
WASHINGTON — A high-profile effort by President Obama and top Democrats to clamp down on special-interest spending in elections has faltered, nearly six months after a Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for unlimited corporate and union spending on independent campaign ads.
Action on a bill in Congress that aims to shine more light on such spending stalled after top House Democrats agreed to exempt the powerful National Rifle Association and other large non-profits from new disclosure rules. Organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Sierra Club complained, and the bill was pulled from the House floor in recent days.
Attempts to place more restrictions on campaign spending have been unsuccessful in recent weeks.
The Supreme Court, for instance, barred the state of Arizona this month from distributing public funds to candidates running against wealthy, self-funded opponents. The move blocks a key component of the state's 12-year-old "Clean Elections" law while the high court decides whether to hear a challenge from the law's opponents.
Last week, acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argues the government's cases before the Supreme Court, decided not to appeal a lower court ruling that allows independent groups to raise as much as they want to support or oppose candidates.
In addition, the Federal Election Commission recently sided with Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, and ruled that it would not have to publicly disclose its spending on movie projects. It was the second major victory for Citizens United this year. The legal battle over the group's critical film about Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 presidential campaign led to the Supreme Court's sweeping decision in January to allow unlimited corporate and union funding on political ads.
"There is a slow dismantling of the regulation of money in politics at the federal level," said Kenneth Gross, a former Federal Election Commission official who is an expert in campaign-finance law. Democrats in Congress working to rein in special-interest spending, he said, are "swimming upstream, both legally and politically."
Disclosing donors
Democratic leaders, including the bill's chief architect Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., have made the campaign-disclosure bill a top issue for the party and have sought to move quickly to put rules in place before November's midterm elections for Congress. In his State of the Union address in January, Obama assailed the Supreme Court ruling as opening "the floodgates for special interests" and urged Congress to pass legislation quickly.
The bill would require non-profits, corporations and unions that broadcast campaign ads to disclose their top five donors. CEOs and union chiefs would be required to appear in political advertising they fund, and companies with government contracts worth $10 million or more and corporations with 20% or more foreign ownership would be barred from political spending.
Furor erupted last week after the bill's authors exempted the powerful National Rifle Association and other groups with membership of more than 1 million or that rely on corporations for less than 15% of contributions from the disclosure requirements. The bill has since been changed to exempt groups with membership of more than 500,000.
That has not quelled criticism from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), which has withdrawn its backing, and other critics. "We support the disclosure that's at the heart of the bill," said Lisa Gilbert of PIRG. "But we think it's a problem to set up a dual system: one set of rules for certain groups and a different set of rules for everyone else."
Opposition to bill
The NRA, which has lobbied aggressively against the bill, remains opposed, despite the exemption.
"All restriction on political speech is repugnant," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the gun owners' group, told USA TODAY.
"Am I happy that the NRA's tongue is not cut for the 2010 ... elections? Absolutely," he said. "Do we still think this bill is unconstitutional? Absolutely."
The bill's backers, such as Meredith McGehee of the non-profit Campaign Legal Center, said the legislation is worthwhile because it would unmask the financial support of "anonymous groups that pop up" to influence elections.
"If the NRA runs an ad, everybody knows who the NRA is," she said.
In an interview, Van Hollen defended the concessions. The original bill had no exemptions, he said, but "it became very clear that we needed to make adjustments for this piece of legislation to pass." He predicted the plan would win House approval, despite the "bumps along the road."
The proposal also faces hurdles in the Senate, where it has no Republican sponsors. One Democrat, New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, called it "the height of irony" to exempt the NRA from a bill designed to limit the role of special interests in campaigns. He has promised to oppose the bill unless the NRA measure is dropped.
__________________
Get and stay informed with "The First Freedom" NRA monthly magazine (the most consistent in-depth reporting on gun issues, laws and politics).
Get NRA-ILA legislative and political RKBA e-mail alerts. Subscribe at http://www.nraila.org/
By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY
June 22, 2010
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-06-21-campaign-spending-legislation_N.htm
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, has criticized campaign finance legislation championed by President Obama and other Democratic leaders. "All restriction on political speech is repugnant," he said.
WASHINGTON — A high-profile effort by President Obama and top Democrats to clamp down on special-interest spending in elections has faltered, nearly six months after a Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for unlimited corporate and union spending on independent campaign ads.
Action on a bill in Congress that aims to shine more light on such spending stalled after top House Democrats agreed to exempt the powerful National Rifle Association and other large non-profits from new disclosure rules. Organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Sierra Club complained, and the bill was pulled from the House floor in recent days.
Attempts to place more restrictions on campaign spending have been unsuccessful in recent weeks.
The Supreme Court, for instance, barred the state of Arizona this month from distributing public funds to candidates running against wealthy, self-funded opponents. The move blocks a key component of the state's 12-year-old "Clean Elections" law while the high court decides whether to hear a challenge from the law's opponents.
Last week, acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argues the government's cases before the Supreme Court, decided not to appeal a lower court ruling that allows independent groups to raise as much as they want to support or oppose candidates.
In addition, the Federal Election Commission recently sided with Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, and ruled that it would not have to publicly disclose its spending on movie projects. It was the second major victory for Citizens United this year. The legal battle over the group's critical film about Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 presidential campaign led to the Supreme Court's sweeping decision in January to allow unlimited corporate and union funding on political ads.
"There is a slow dismantling of the regulation of money in politics at the federal level," said Kenneth Gross, a former Federal Election Commission official who is an expert in campaign-finance law. Democrats in Congress working to rein in special-interest spending, he said, are "swimming upstream, both legally and politically."
Disclosing donors
Democratic leaders, including the bill's chief architect Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., have made the campaign-disclosure bill a top issue for the party and have sought to move quickly to put rules in place before November's midterm elections for Congress. In his State of the Union address in January, Obama assailed the Supreme Court ruling as opening "the floodgates for special interests" and urged Congress to pass legislation quickly.
The bill would require non-profits, corporations and unions that broadcast campaign ads to disclose their top five donors. CEOs and union chiefs would be required to appear in political advertising they fund, and companies with government contracts worth $10 million or more and corporations with 20% or more foreign ownership would be barred from political spending.
Furor erupted last week after the bill's authors exempted the powerful National Rifle Association and other groups with membership of more than 1 million or that rely on corporations for less than 15% of contributions from the disclosure requirements. The bill has since been changed to exempt groups with membership of more than 500,000.
That has not quelled criticism from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), which has withdrawn its backing, and other critics. "We support the disclosure that's at the heart of the bill," said Lisa Gilbert of PIRG. "But we think it's a problem to set up a dual system: one set of rules for certain groups and a different set of rules for everyone else."
Opposition to bill
The NRA, which has lobbied aggressively against the bill, remains opposed, despite the exemption.
"All restriction on political speech is repugnant," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the gun owners' group, told USA TODAY.
"Am I happy that the NRA's tongue is not cut for the 2010 ... elections? Absolutely," he said. "Do we still think this bill is unconstitutional? Absolutely."
The bill's backers, such as Meredith McGehee of the non-profit Campaign Legal Center, said the legislation is worthwhile because it would unmask the financial support of "anonymous groups that pop up" to influence elections.
"If the NRA runs an ad, everybody knows who the NRA is," she said.
In an interview, Van Hollen defended the concessions. The original bill had no exemptions, he said, but "it became very clear that we needed to make adjustments for this piece of legislation to pass." He predicted the plan would win House approval, despite the "bumps along the road."
The proposal also faces hurdles in the Senate, where it has no Republican sponsors. One Democrat, New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, called it "the height of irony" to exempt the NRA from a bill designed to limit the role of special interests in campaigns. He has promised to oppose the bill unless the NRA measure is dropped.
__________________
Get and stay informed with "The First Freedom" NRA monthly magazine (the most consistent in-depth reporting on gun issues, laws and politics).
Get NRA-ILA legislative and political RKBA e-mail alerts. Subscribe at http://www.nraila.org/
Similar threads
