The DISCLOSE Act and the NRA: Some Bad News, H. A. von Spakovsky on NationalReview.com

[AtackDuck]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

AtackDuck wrote:

The way I read it, "We got ours, screw the rest of you."

Typical of the shotgun-chic.

I suppose you are attempting an humorous insult. Almost cute.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AtackDuck wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AtackDuck wrote:

Mr. Keene's letter is quite different fromMr. LaPierre's and Chris Cox's in that, it was from the letters of LaPierre and Cox that everyone got the impression of the NRA throwing all other gun orgs under the bus, saying that the NRA would not oppose thebill if the NRA was exempted. What else are we to assumewhen that is what they wrote?I would like to believe that the NRA is honorable and would not abandon the others, but that is not what I and many others read in LaPierre and Cox's letters.

It looks as if the situation may actually work out to kill the bill. The question remains: Will the NRA fight for the other gun orgs, or will they say"wemust protect our own, sink or swim." Can we trust the NRA?

I do not see that in any of the NRA letters. Where is it?

The way I read it, "We got ours, screw the rest of you."

That is not what you claimed, is it.

But, if it makes you feel better to paraphrase and put words in their mouth in an attempt to shore up your position, I suppose reality can be suspended.

 

[zack991]

imported post

AtackDuck wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AtackDuck wrote:

Mr. Keene's letter is quite different fromMr. LaPierre's and Chris Cox's in that, it was from the letters of LaPierre and Cox that everyone got the impression of the NRA throwing all other gun orgs under the bus, saying that the NRA would not oppose thebill if the NRA was exempted. What else are we to assumewhen that is what they wrote?I would like to believe that the NRA is honorable and would not abandon the others, but that is not what I and many others read in LaPierre and Cox's letters.

It looks as if the situation may actually work out to kill the bill. The question remains: Will the NRA fight for the other gun orgs, or will they say"wemust protect our own, sink or swim." Can we trust the NRA?

I do not see that in any of the NRA letters. Where is it?

[align=left]

See in bold below. From NRAILA.com

[/align][align=center][/align][align=center]

Setting The Record Straight On The “DISCLOSE Act”

[/align]

Friday, June 18, 2010


We appreciate the concerns some NRA members have raised about our positionon H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.” Unfortunately, the mainstream media andother 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 leadersannounced they wouldexempt us from its draconian restrictions onpolitical 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 [url]http://www.nraila.org[/url] for the latest news on this issue.

So,how are they opposing this bill ifthey are just "not involved in final consideration of this bill in the House."??

The way I read it, "We got ours, screw the rest of you."

How any one can say we misunderstand the NRA's stance on it is beyond me, it is there in black and white.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

I don't know what the NRA was thinking. Some say they are so special interest they don't care about rights anymore, just power. Others say it was a diabolical plan to fracture the Disclose act from the inside.

All I know for certain is that some Dems backed off support when the NRA was exempt. Now the bill has been shelved.

Maybe we just got lucky, but the very people who were trying to push against special-interest groups lost a lot of support when they themselves were willing to sell-out to the NRA. It was a glaring flashing 'WARNING' sign that this type of legislation is bullshit. When the bills very own supporters started doing run-arounds before even passing the bill it just showed how this type of legislation encourages unfair and hypocritical dealings.

Was the NRA lucky or diabolical? Were they truly as lame as they purported to be, or were they pulling a lame-duck ruse to draw in their prey?

 

[AtackDuck]

Well I guess the NRA is planning on fighting this in the Senate, now that their devious and ever so clever idea of opposing it by not "being involved in its passage" seems to have not worked. Or did it? silencing your competition is what this is all about. I guess the NRA is on the way to getting what it wants.

 

[TFred]

Looks like the Democrats were unable to break a filibuster... at least for the moment, the DISCLOSE Act appears to be dead.

TFred

Senate Republicans Block Campaign Finance Bill

Senate Republicans blocked legislation imposing new restrictions on political activity by special interest groups Tuesday, likely dealing a fatal blow to a drive by the White House and congressional Democrats to rewrite campaign rules in the run-up to the midterm elections.

The 57-41 vote was three short of the total needed to advance the measure, which calls for greater disclosure on campaign advertising funded independently by corporations, unions and other organizations, but included an exemption for the National Rifle Association and a small number of other groups.

See link above for rest of article.