Posted on 06/18/2010 1:53:10 PM PDT by neverdem
Congressional Democrats, to avert a clash with the National Rifle Association, have crafted a blatantly unfair amendment to an already cynical and probably unconstitutional bill regulating political discourse. The amendment, crafted by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., exempts a handful of the most powerful lobbies -- including the NRA -- from proposed burdensome disclosure requirements.
It's a shameful moment for the House of Representatives -- especially the Democratic majority, and particularly Van Hollen. On the right, though, the ire is mostly aimed at the NRA for agreeing to drop its opposition to the bill because of the carveout.
But the facts paint an ambiguous picture as far as the NRA's culpability.
The NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, on May 26 wrote every House member, attacking the DISCLOSE Act for creating "a series of Byzantine disclosure requirements that have the obvious effect of intimidating speech."
Cox wrote, "there is no legitimate reason to include the NRA" in the bill's reporting and disclosure rules. Democrats say the bill is about curbing the political influence of corporations, which sometimes form nonprofit front groups to run issue ads. This bill aims to expose the real money behind such ads. The NRA, however, doesn't hide behind front groups.
The NRA's objection derailed the bill just before it was expected to pass.
Rep. Heath Shuler, a pro-gun Democrat from a conservative North Carolina district, responded with a proposal to exempt membership-based nonprofits from the bill. This would protect the NRA, Human Rights Campaign, Americans for Tax Reform, and many other groups.
Apparently, for Democratic leadership, that defeated the purpose. Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, wrote his own amendment, exempting only the largest membership groups. It was a carve-out for the NRA.
So the NRA lobbyists were now faced with a bill that neither regulated guns nor regulated the NRA. Just as the NRA doesn't take a position on cap-and-trade measures or abortion bills, it decided it wouldn't take a position on the DISCLOSE Act.
The right exploded in anger. Other nonprofits felt abandoned. Some NRA board members felt betrayed. The conservative rank-and-file felt an ally had behaved selfishly to the detriment of the movement.
But the center-right is not some monolithic force with identical interests. The Chamber of Commerce supported the stimulus and cash for clunkers. National Right to Life didn't oppose the House health care bill. ATR was silent on the partial-birth abortion bill.
An analogy: I've read reviewers critique a book for not covering some topics they find important. Such criticism is silly, because it boils down to this: Even though the author wrote the book he said he would write, the reviewer wishes the author had written a different book than he wrote.
Today, some conservatives wish the NRA were a different organization than it is. It is not a conservative lobby. It is not the right's American Civil Liberties Union.
It is a gun rights group. On some occasions, the NRA has pushed pro-gun legislation that is anti-conservative -- such as bills limiting private property owners from prohibiting legal guns.
The NRA hasn't endorsed Van Hollen's crooked bit of cynical politicking, and it isn't critiquing anyone who fights the bill. It has just decided not to use gun-rights money to oppose a speech-rights bill.
And of course, the real villain here is Van Hollen, who -- in the name of curbing the special interests -- gave the biggest special interests a free pass.
But even faced with these valid arguments the NRA's walking away from this fight is hard to swallow. As NRA board member Cleta Mitchell puts it, the First Amendment is a principle, not merely an issue.
Also, Van Hollen's deal is so clearly unfair, and the NRA, by dropping its objection to the bill, is indirectly using unfair means to protect gun rights.
NRA lobbyists say they are just looking out for their members. In this case, that means abandoning friends.
Timothy P. Carney is The Washington Examiner's lobbying editor. His K Street column appears on Wednesdays.
Somebody stepped in some doodoo.
...the NRA, by dropping its objection to the bill, is... abandoning friends.
I'm still ticked, and a soon-to-be-ex-NRA member.
.
Is this the same Chris Cox who, under Bush, eliminated the uptick rule for shorting stocks and caused the financial crisis in the market?
He's a lobbyist now?
I let them know that if what I am reading is true I may not be renewing my membership when it comes up. The NRA presents itself as a staunch supporter of the Constitution with, of course, its main concern being the Second Amendment. I do not believe that one can pick and choose portions of the Constitution to support and others to abandon and claim to be all about “Constitutional rights”. From what I have read of this “Disclose Act” it is all about suppressing speech that the rats don’t like while empowering their allies to say whatever they want. That stinks and if the NRA is at all serious about upholding the Constitution they will say so and act accordingly.
Actually, the NRA was being, ummm, “creative.”
By getting the Congressional commies to “carve out” an exemption for the NRA they may have killed the bill from the left!
He's a lobbyist now?
No, this Chris Cox has headed the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, NRA-ILA, for quite a while.
Wow, there sure are a lot of Chris Cox’s out there. So this isn’t the grandson of Richard M. Nixon?
Questions for the NRA:
If everyone else has lost their 1A rights, who will be able to stand beside you when they come after your 1A rights? Surely you don’t think they’re not going to come for you too?
And when no one has 1A rights anymore, how are you going to defend your 2A rights?
*******
A strong First Amendemnt protects every other right. When the First Amendment is weakened, every other right is weakened. This shouldn’t be hard to understand.
I went to the NRA website, and just look at the weaselly and deceptive way they describe to us (for now) members that they are withdrawing opposition:
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.
Those two sentences lets us know that NRA is more than a little slippery in the weasel word dept; and that it thinks its members are incapable of reading.
Me, I'm headed for the exit.
.
Sitting by while freedom is taken is not what the NRA should do. They were bought real cheap on this one.
My understanding is that the NRA’s exemption alone would mean most Democrats would not vote for the bill at all. That’s a slick political move on the part of the NRA. It stopped a bad bill for everyone. I’ll keep my membership in the NRA.
I agree. NRA made an educated guess that this carve out would generate outrage and thereby kill the whole thing. AND, display for all to see the complete lack of integrity so many legislators have.
“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Neimoller”
Nuff said.
A bribe to drop opposition to an unconstitutional law remains such whether it was asked for or not. Only the acceptance is necessary for it to be a bribe.
Nancy Pelosi yanks campaign finance bill
Response from David Keene, NRA First Vice President, to DISCLOSE Act Criticism
On the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act More Alinsky!
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
INDEED.
There is no victory in this ~ which is why we have to vote these pukes out this Fall.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.