NRA - Now I'm really confused

[Bobitis]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...islation_N.htm

Does anyone else see any ambiguity here?
Or is it just me?

[armedandsafe]

Efforts to curb special interests in elections fizzle
Updated 15h 48m ago

By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY
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. {Not true. Many corporate and union restrictions are still in place. }

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. {Not true. It was and is intended to bar spending and publication altogether, in the last 90 days leading up to an election.}

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." {Not true. These were merely actions to prevent further stifiling of our freedom to speak and petition.}

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.

About what I'd expect from this yellow rag.

Pops

[Bobitis]

"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".

Why would 'top democrats' agree to exempt the NRA?

"The NRA, which has lobbied aggressively against the bill, remains opposed, despite the exemption".

Sorry, but my head is spinning like Linda Blairs in the Excorsist. The NRA lobbied against the bill? You mean until they became exempt? Then it's stand by the sidelines and wait for the outcome. Is that what the NRA did?

"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."

So let me try to wrap my brain around this. All help is welcome.

Mr. LaPierre was against the bill until he got voted into the club. At that point, he took a mulligan. When he got his ego handed to him, he went back to "All restriction on political speech is repugnant"?

I never took a critical thinking class in college. Being an engineer oriented type, most of them were based on science and logic. Am I missing something here? Am I reading too much into his comments? Am I to quick to condemn?

I've no problem being corrected if I'm wrong. My ego won't object, and I'll gladly admit my ignorance.

Am I being overly critical?

Thanks,
Bob.

[pickenup]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

The NRA lobbied against the bill? You mean until they became exempt? Then it's stand by the sidelines and wait for the outcome. Is that what the NRA did?

Yup, that about sums it up.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

"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".

Why would 'top democrats' agree to exempt the NRA?

"The NRA, which has lobbied aggressively against the bill, remains opposed, despite the exemption".

Sorry, but my head is spinning like Linda Blairs in the Excorsist. The NRA lobbied against the bill? You mean until they became exempt? Then it's stand by the sidelines and wait for the outcome. Is that what the NRA did?

"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."

So let me try to wrap my brain around this. All help is welcome.

Mr. LaPierre was against the bill until he got voted into the club. At that point, he took a mulligan. When he got his ego handed to him, he went back to "All restriction on political speech is repugnant"?

I never took a critical thinking class in college. Being an engineer oriented type, most of them were based on science and logic. Am I missing something here? Am I reading too much into his comments? Am I to quick to condemn?

I've no problem being corrected if I'm wrong. My ego won't object, and I'll gladly admit my ignorance.

Am I being overly critical?

Thanks,
Bob.

Nope, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head, Bob. Niiiiiiice.

[Bobitis]

Thanks for the feedback. For a while there I truly was confused.
Most of what I've read is like trying to wade through a voters pamphlet. Worthless crap is interjected, and words are written and twisted to the point you have no Idea what's being said.

What happened to using plain ol English? If I can't understand it, a good 85% of the population won't either. I don't watch MSM and prefer to read. I believe that may be the problem. Most folks who bother to read a bill won't be able to understand it. So they rely on soundbites instead. Free always sounds better than 'your ride is over'. We're fighting for you is better than 'if you contribute to my cause'.

I was so stoopified, I didn't know what to think.

KISS!

Thanks again.

[millwright]

No problem, really. Just "politics as usual" inside the Beltway. The Dems thought to "pull the teeth" of the NRA, plus gaining the added bonus of casting them in a bad light with the public, (and its membership), for "accepting" the exemption. Its an old gambit.

IOW, a lot of fuss'n feathers but not much substance......Which is pretty much the hallmark of the Obama Administration and this Congress..... >MW

[Bobitis]

And the NRA capitulated.

To me, that speaks volumes about their motives.

Politics as usual as you say......

[45nut]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

And the NRA capitulated.

To me, that speaks volumes about their motives.

Politics as usual as you say......

Hey Bob,

I think of politics in general with the Second Law of Thermodynamics in mind: Everything goes from a more complex state of being to a less complex state. Meaning, everything is breaking down, slowly dieing, in our bodies as we age and our country too.

The NRA, IMHO, is also devolving into just another political entity who's own self interest is guiding its decisions in this stage of its life. Kind of like the Roman Empire the died because of it's decadency and moral decline. America has lost it's moral compass and we are heading down a rabbit hole, fast.

[300 H&H]

From what I understand this bill is pretty much dead on arrival anyway....But I am disapointed in the NRA position, regarding the first amendment. They should realize that without the first amendment, all the other amendments over time become meaningless. I, and I am sure many other members have chimed in to them about this.

Regards, Kirk

[armedandsafe]

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox's Message on H.R. 5175

I appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding the NRA's 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.

Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy

Response from David Keene, NRA First
Vice President, to DISCLOSE Act Criticism

I am writing in response to your email to NRA Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox protesting what you term a "backroom" deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to "regulate and limit the First Amendment right to political free speech of other groups."

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.


Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy

Perhaps they are lying? Then they have been lying for over a century, because this is what the NRA has always been: a SINGLE INTERST ADVOCATE. The Second Amendment is what we pay them to support and protect.

Now, carry on with your pre-formed opinions that every organization to which you belong must do what you want and ONLY what you want.

Pops

[rentalguy1]

wait, what?

[carver]

I have read everything posted on this one, and I'm lost! It would appear that some of you think that the NRA just indorsed a bill that is in violation of the Constitution. Am I correct in this?

[Zane71464]

I too have read everything that has been posted, and I'm still a bit confussed on it all? Ive read and re-read...not sure about this.

[carver]

It appears to me that the NRA was opposed to this legislation form the first, and is still opposed to it, no matter that the Demoncrats wanted to exempt them in order to get their OK on this one.

[Zane71464]

That's excatly what the heck I was thinking as well Carver!
But "is" they, or "aint" they...ya know.

[armedandsafe]

Originally Posted by carver

I have read everything posted on this one, and I'm lost! It would appear that some of you think that the NRA just indorsed a bill that is in violation of the Constitution. Am I correct in this?

No they have not endorsed the bill. They have decided to not spend our money in actively fighting it at this time. They have decided to spend that money on fighting bills and activities which directly endanger the 2nd.

Pops

[Bobitis]

I guess the problem I have lies in the fact that they didn't say 'screw you and your exemption'. In my mind, they sold me out, and I'm a member. I want the NRA to fight for the 2nd for ALL of us. Not just the members.

The way I read it is that they fought from the beginning. Good on them. Then when the exemption came (based on Democrat support), they sat idle. At this time they had nothing to lose in the battle. It's a win-win for them.

Then the rhetoric starts about how they opposed it from its inception.

There is something disingenuous in all this hyperbola, and I feel my rights have been compromised by the organization I supported.

Character comes to mind. We can all be misguided at times, but this is unacceptable to me.

They should have called BS the entire time. They should have said 'eat me' when the club came calling. Instead they elected to join the franchise.

Thier actions only lead me to believe that the 'NRA' is only looking after thier own.

What's that they say about opinions?

You've read mine.