Posted on 06/18/2010 9:27:20 PM PDT by STARWISE
Hatched over the last few weeks by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) with backing from House Democratic leaders and the White House, it was a legislative maneuver rich with the kind of irony that often goes unremarked in Washington — a classic backroom special interest deal to help pass a bill that would require heightened disclosure of special interest spending on campaign ads.
The idea was to neutralize opposition to tough new campaign spending rules from one particularly powerful special interest group, the National Rifle Association, by exempting it as well as the left-leaning Sierra Club and the ecumenical Humane Society and AARP from certain disclosure requirements in the bill.
But while the maneuver was effective in getting the NRA to back down, the deal sparked a backlash that pitted big-money special interest groups, including some traditional allies, against each other, and turned fence-sitters and even some supporters of the bill into opponents.
Short of the votes needed for passage in the House, the bill was pulled Thursday night by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Nonetheless, a House Democratic leadership aide said Van Hollen and House Democratic leaders intend to honor the deal and stick by the plan. They consider it the only path to passage for the bill, which has little Republican support and dim prospects in the Senate.
The aide pointed out that the deal did not cost the bill the support of any of the major groups pushing for stricter campaign finance rules.
“The legislation itself is so important that Public Citizen is still going to continue supporting passage,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the group. But he bemoaned what he said were “special interests groups trying to make sure that this law applies to everyone except them. No one should be carved out.”
Known as the DISCLOSE Act, short for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections, the Van Hollen bill is intended to tighten campaign finance restrictions loosened by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision in January.
That decision overturned decades of law barring corporations and unions from spending general treasury funds (as opposed to funds from political action committees) on ads that explicitly advocated a candidate’s election or defeat.
Conservatives and Republicans praised the decision as a victory for free speech, while liberals and Democrats —– including Obama —– predicted it could unleash a torrent of corporate-funded attack ads against them.
The DISCLOSE Act would ban certain corporations from airing such election ads, and would require corporate and union groups that did to name their top five donors on screen and on their websites, as well as feature their top official on camera in the ads.
Many special interest groups would be affected by the DISCLOSE Act since they are registered as non-profit corporations, and literally hundreds of them had come out in opposition to the bill.
But Van Hollen’s team was most concerned about the NRA, which in a show of strength in April forced Democrats to mothball a bill to grant the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress by demonstrating that it had the votes to simultaneously repeal the District’s strict gun control laws.
They calculated that the NRA’s opposition similarly could single-handedly sink the DISCLOSE Act by spooking conservative House Democrats whose support was needed to pass the bill, but for whom NRA opposition could be the kiss of death in an anti-incumbent election year expected to favor Republicans.
So when the NRA came out in formal opposition to the bill, arguing in a May 26 letter that the bill’s “byzantine disclosure requirements” have “the obvious effect of intimidating speech,” House Democratic leaders quickly pulled the bill from the calendar of the Rules Committee, which was scheduled to consider it the next day.
According to the House leadership aide, over the next two weeks, Van Hollen met twice with NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox, (((former head of that great govt. agency, the SEC, that regulates Wall Street))) once accompanied by Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina and once by John Dingell of Michigan.
Both conservative Democrats are among the caucus’ leading opponents of gun control.
On Monday, POLITICO revealed the result of the negotiations:
an amendment to the bill that would exempt from the disclosure requirements organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations.
Though House Democratic sources say the goal was to exempt a handful of the biggest and most well-established advocacy groups, it turned out that only the NRA met all the criteria.
Advocates for tighter restrictions on campaign spending grumbled, opponents of the bill —– including the powerful right-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce —– accused the NRA of selling out, and gun control advocates pledged to oppose the bill unless the NRA exemption was removed, with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y), one of the bill’s co-sponsors expressing “grave concerns with the NRA putting their fingerprint on too much of our legislation, and that is what has happened with this special carve-out.”
Meanwhile, other interests groups balked at the NRA’s preferential treatment and clamored to be made exempt, too.
But most problematic for the bill’s prospects:
liberal House Democrats balked at the perception that they were voting for a sweetheart deal for the NRA, regarded by many liberals as perpetuating gun violence in urban areas by opposing gun control measures.
As Rep. Mike Quigley, a Chicago Democrat, put it, since the NRA has worked against legislation to make it tougher to buy firearms at gun shows, it “simply cannot be allowed to play by a different set of rules than one that seeks to advocate for such sound policy.”
Van Hollen responded to similar concerns on Thursday, lowering the membership threshold to 500,000 for groups to qualify for the exemption, which brought in a handful of other top special interest groups, including the Sierra Club, the Humane Society and the AARP.
Now, progressive members can go back home and say that it’s not just the NRA that is exempted, it’s not just some NRA carve-out,” said the Democratic leadership aide. “Other groups are covered, too.”
But that approach seemed to backfire to some extent, as well, further inflaming other groups that did not qualify under the loophole —– and even some that would benefit from it.
Rest @ link
here, here. I totally concur. The NRA is neither ignorant nor stupid. The left has been launching its Alinsky tactics for decades & now that we have their battle plan and are using it against them, some that are not true believers of the war against ‘Bog Bother’ come out attacking their fellow soldier in the fox hole. The very quick witted & wise at the NRA knew full well that the majority of the Alinsky left would not go for a bill that gave them immunity from their overreaching tentacles.
Sounds to me like they channeled their inner founding fathers & I applaud them for it. they got this bill stopped dead in its tracks without having to enter a courtroom that would have taken years to overcome.
>> that the NRA part was a Poison Pill for the bill.
It crossed my mind, but I’m not confident that was the case.
I’m not clear where the NRA stands anymore.
I belong to GOA and for a long time, the second ammendment foundation. I also used to contribute $$$$ to the jews for the preservation of firearms group..........but I quit when I saw 77% of the American jewish voters voted for muslim boy hussein. if they don’t want to help themselves then I’m not gonna either. that money goes other places in support of our second amendment. take care.
Somewhat with you on NRA’s way of doing things.
Its almost like the big dogs in any national org or politician is seeing so much money just flying all about DC like a snow storm in North Dakota, that they have all gotten tunnel-vision. Or like my Brazillian friends say about their politics, “same pile of shite, different flys”. The flys are blinded by the poo.
really? see my post #8. this VERY old NRA boy was ready to go to dukes in years past if ANYONE bad mouthed the NRA.....then I learned of their assosiation with the muslim terrorist front group, CAIR’s front man, agenda setter, lobbyist and overall heavy hitter grover norquist......who is ALSO/was (in the last decade) an NRA board member!!!!!!!! care to comment on that? married to a muslim......founder of the islamic institute AND a CAIR big shot. the NRA knew/knows of his anti American work.....they do not care. (per a/my 2008 phone conversation with an NRA rep...his response..........”we do not care what NRA board members do or say on their own time”. friend from foe? okay, defend the NRA’s stance on allowing this muslim bastard to be even let in their front door let alone serve on their board!
Your post #8 describes your dislike of the NRA because some who are in their leadership positions are not perfect.
Your post #23 describes your dislike of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership because some Jews aren’t perfect.
I can tell my friends from my enemies, and If I think one of my friends is doing something wrong, then I try to let them know, but I don’t shoot at the guys in my own foxhole.
If you think organizations like the NRA and the JPFO are your enemies, then I can not help you.
good God are you wrong. dislike ‘some’ Jews????? (77%!!!!!!!) after the amount of money this very old boy has contributed to them!!!!!???? how old are you?.... post 8......’SOME are not perfect’!!!!??? re-read for crying out loud!! NRA ‘some’?......are you blind?! grover norquist is a heavy hitting, agenda setter, fund raiser and lobbyist for CAIR!!!!! leadership positions are ‘not perfect’.??....good God. you young’ins that slurp up the NRA’s BS is incredible. so you are okay with a CAIR muslim terrorist, grover norquist, as an NRA board member??? good God sonny, do your homework. you kids have no idea. ‘dislike’ of jews??.....after the amount of money this old timer sent their orgs. and groups????....this long time retrired old guy has sent quite a bit of money towards many groups over MANY years, jewish orgs. at the foerfront for sure even tho I have not one drop of jewish blood in my body. dislike off jews?? my goodness, you are so incorrect.
I can not help you.
not looking for help sonny. have it your way young man. maybe when you get a bit older you will understand.
You could not be more misguided!
Campaign donations are, of course, a form of political speech and the 1st Amendment was written with such political speech in mind. Anonymity is essential to free political speech. Just ask anyone who donated to the Yes on 8 campaign in California. People have lost jobs because their donations supporting Prop. 8 were found out. Now the remaining donors are fighting in court to maintain their privacy.
And how many of the Founders would have hanged if King George had known who was writing what in the colonies? Many of the great works of the Revolution were published anonymously.
You cannot have free speech if there exists a simple means to punish it. The disclosure you and the Democrats call for would quell political speech in this country.
(BTW: Glad to see you're still here Shooter!)
The NRA didn’t support the bill, they agreed not to fight it on the final floor vote if they were specifically exepted. As a single issue group it makes sense. There was no guarantee if they fought it would lose, and if they didn’t there was no guarantee it would pass. And if it passed they would have to live under it hoping it would be overturned. Having gone down that road with McCain-Feingold they chose to ensure they could operate whether it won or not.
Regardless of whether you agree with it, the NRA is still the only effective force defending our gun rights. It’s incredibly short-sighted to write them off over the decision. The NRA is however a democratic organization. If you care that much, you would be better off organizing to elect board memebers who agree with your point of view, instead of taking your ball and leaving.
Is it better to have Soros, the Chinese, and the Saudi’s funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into US campaigns due to our lax disclosure rules? I very much doubt the Obama campaign was funded by small contributors as claimed.
You make sound points. And maybe I was reacting to some of the headlines about the NRA negotiating backroom deals with dems. Membership isn't up until November and now that I have been settled down, will renew with no second thought.
The marine will listen to reason. And thanks for posting to my rant. Semper Fi!
If foreign nationals are contributing to American political campaigns, then they do so in violation of existing US law. It is highly unlikely that passing yet another law will suddenly kindle within them a respect for Federal law. They will simply break the new law as they did the old ones. The only people who will be affected are law abiding Americans who will be discouraged from participating in the political system out of fear of retribution.
For all you new (and old) FReepers... it‘ole 2.5, the GOA hating NRA member…
Here is a thread where you spewed your typical, and not very enlightened, rant without listening to a word someone else says… Typical 2.5 whining rant about the GOA.
and here you are in another thread and using your typical whining rant with me… 2.5 gets the real facts and then gets caught in a couple of, well let’s say factual distortions.
And again even after being confronted by facts defeating your position you continue to defend the indefensible.
So even after getting your butt severely kicked to the curb, you continue to resort to distortions, twisting everyone’s words and in some cases; out right lying about your actions in attempting to defend your weak bias.
Even so, I tried to reach out over a year later and help you see the error of your non-question, but you again went back to your old ways.
Many people have answered your stupid questions and countered your stands innumerous times… you just refuse to see it. Point is if you can’t have an honest debate fighting a common enemy, then do everyone else a favor… stay on the sidelines and argue with yourself, don’t try to distort the focus of this fight.
Every 2A group, no matter what you may think of them should be WELCOMED to the struggle we are facing, many former NRA members, myself included, who definitely have no love for the NRA leadership have been going back into the group because the stakes are so high, don’t let your petty bias cloud the big picture.
AOV sends with warmest regards.
For all you new (and old) FReepers... it‘ole 2.5, the GOA hating NRA member…
Here is a thread where you spewed your typical, and not very enlightened, rant without listening to a word someone else says… Typical 2.5 whining rant about the GOA.
and here you are in another thread and using your typical whining rant with me… 2.5 gets the real facts and then gets caught in a couple of, well let’s say factual distortions.
And again even after being confronted by facts defeating your position you continue to defend the indefensible.
So even after getting your butt severely kicked to the curb, you continue to resort to distortions, twisting everyone’s words and in some cases; out right lying about your actions in attempting to defend your weak bias.
Even so, I tried to reach out over a year later and help you see the error of your non-question, but you again went back to your old ways.
Many people have answered your stupid questions and countered your stands innumerous times… you just refuse to see it. Point is if you can’t have an honest debate fighting a common enemy, then do everyone else a favor… stay on the sidelines and argue with yourself, don’t try to distort the focus of this fight.
Every 2A group, no matter what you may think of them should be WELCOMED to the struggle we are facing, many former NRA members, myself included, who definitely have no love for the NRA leadership have been going back into the group because the stakes are so high, don’t let your petty bias cloud the big picture.
AOV sends with warmest regards.
For all you new (and old) FReepers... it‘ole 2.5, the GOA hating NRA member…
Here is a thread where you spewed your typical, and not very enlightened, rant without listening to a word someone else says… Typical 2.5 whining rant about the GOA.
and here you are in another thread and using your typical whining rant with me… 2.5 gets the real facts and then gets caught in a couple of, well let’s say factual distortions.
And again even after being confronted by facts defeating your position you continue to defend the indefensible.
So even after getting your butt severely kicked to the curb, you continue to resort to distortions, twisting everyone’s words and in some cases; out right lying about your actions in attempting to defend your weak bias.
Even so, I tried to reach out over a year later and help you see the error of your non-question, but you again went back to your old ways.
Many people have answered your stupid questions and countered your stands innumerous times… you just refuse to see it. Point is if you can’t have an honest debate fighting a common enemy, then do everyone else a favor… stay on the sidelines and argue with yourself, don’t try to distort the focus of this fight.
Every 2A group, no matter what you may think of them should be WELCOMED to the struggle we are facing, many former NRA members, myself included, who definitely have no love for the NRA leadership have been going back into the group because the stakes are so high, don’t let your petty bias cloud the big picture.
AOV sends with warmest regards.
Sorry for the triple bang, the FR server is still giving me fits... but it does deserve repeating...
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.