In their attempt to mitigate negative election-year fallout from the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favor of rights of free speech for everyone in Citizens United, Democrats Senator Charles Schumer (New York) and Representative Chris Van Hollen (Maryland) proposed legislation entitled “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections,” or DISCLOSE. 

Schumer was very clear that DISCLOSE was carefully crafted to “embarrass companies [inclined to get involved in the fall elections] out of exercising those rights,” according to Kim Strassel in the Wall Street Journal. “The bill will make companies ‘think twice’, [Schumer] rejoiced. ‘The deterrent effect should not be underestimated.’ ” Even though the bill is considered by many to be unconstitutional, the Democrats’ “goal here isn’t lasting legislation. The goal is to have this [law] in place for this election, when Democrats are at a low point, and when an empowered union base and a silenced corporate presence could make the difference between keeping the House and losing it.”  

The bill immediately met resistance from numerous conservative groups, including the National Rifle Association. The bill would require organizations to disclose their top donors if they sponsor political television commercials or pay for mass mailings in the months leading to an election. The NRA initially said the bill “creates a series of byzantine disclosure requirements that have the obvious effect of intimidating speech…[and] attacks nearly all of the NRA’s political speech by creating an arbitrary patchwork of unprecedented reporting and disclosure requirements.”

Such resistance weakened support for the bill by numerous Democrats running for re-election this fall, and so a remedy was applied: exclude the NRA from those troublesome reporting requirements in exchange for which the NRA would drop all resistance to the bill. After NRA lobbyist Chris Cox met with Van Hollen, the NRA was “carved out” of the bill.  

The outcry reached ear-shattering levels. “The NRA sells out to Democrats on the First Amendment,” castigated the Wall Street Journal. “Conservatives take on the NRA over [the] deal on [the] disclosure bill,” cried the Washington Post. RedState.org chimed in: “The National Rifle Association’s Excuse Holds No Water.” A member of the NRA’s Board of Directors, Cleta Mitchell, wrote in the Washington Post, that:

For its part, the NRA — on whose board of directors I serve — rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for "neutrality" from the legislation's requirements. In doing so, the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind….

This is not just “disclosure.”  It is a scheme hatched by political insiders to eradicate disfavored speech. There is no room under the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with the NRA or anyone else.

In it’s defense, the NRA’s statement was revealing: “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… We refuse to let this congress impose [the bill’s] unconstitutional restrictions on our Association… There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk of 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.”  

Once the deal with the NRA was sealed — to exempt that organization from the bill — others began to clamor for exemption, including the Congressional Black Caucus’s concerns about the impact the bill would have on the NAACP. Compromise in the bill broadened exemptions to include the AARP, the Sierra Club, and the National Right to Life Committee, in order to soften their opposition to the bill.

Liberal House Democrats complained that the bill was being too soft on the NRA, and that by voting for the bill with the new loophole, they would in essence be supporting the NRA.  Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, held that this whole backroom jousting would turn out to be a “tactical mistake.”  

I would suggest to you that they [the NRA] have decided that protecting the Second Amendment right is their mission and cutting a deal on the First Amendment to ensure their capacity to protect the Second Amendment was more important to them, the result of which was to toss overboard roughly 100,000 other associations.

On June 17, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she was pulling the bill from the floor vote scheduled for the next day due to lack of support.  

Photo: Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), left, accompanied by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), gestures during a news conference introducing a bill to undo the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, Feb. 11, 2010: AP Images
 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (16)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

ILoveHomeschoolers said:

Excellent News! This is wonderful! One piece of unconstitutional legislation down - LOTS more to go. We can do it!!!

June 19, 2010

Charles B said:

What the heck are you thinking I am a life member of the NRA and I can tell you that this is the worst thing they could do. To concede to ANY of the democrats "deals" is to say that we do not have a strong foundation. This will single handedly be the straw for the NRA. They will start struggling with their membership and retaining who they already have. As a life member I will probably retain that title, but I will be darned if I will give to ANY MORE of their needs. They have hurt their good standing with me, and are as traiterous as the Democrats are to this country. One thing about being a business, one can chose to say no to their business. Chuck

June 19, 2010 | url

Dennis Fuller said:

fullwing This is emblematic of the problems with the NRA. It is not the first time they have bought into the notion to "join them rather than fight them". When they took a seat at the NGO trough of the United Nations, I stopped my membership. There are many other pro-gun organizations out there that can use my membership, that will not be part of the problem too.

June 20, 2010

Thewarner said:

Right On! Charles and Dennis, right on. I have been a member since I was eleven and am now 70. Except for the time when the NRA was being taken over by bad guys and I quit, I have been supportive, since rejoining I have become disenchanted with them but am now fed up with their causes for money. I did not know about the NGO status with the U.N. This is it! In bed with the enemy! I am going elsewhere. Thanks.

June 21, 2010

Farnk said:

... NRA to Satan: "Take me Satan, I am yours, just give me those few pieces of silver".

June 21, 2010

Alfred Adams said:

... When the NRA decided to support only those constitutional amendments that appeal to their goals, I resigned my life membership. Every proamerican, which I thought the NRA was, should fight for the entire consititution, not just one amendment. They will never again get any support or money from me.

June 22, 2010

Peter Pressure said:

They . . . "THEY CAME FIRST for the First Ammendment, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't primarily a First Ammendment defender. THEN THEY CAME for the 2nd Ammendment, and I didn't speak up because I didn't own a Gun. THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."

June 22, 2010

H. K. "Mac" Mclaughlin said:

Mr. So far, in the comments I have read, you are all being short sighted and foolish! You may wish to slap at the NRA but, they have for many years been at the front of the fight with great success in protecting the very important right that you supposedly cherish. You still have your gun rights and in most of these United States the NRA helped us get "shall issue" laws in place for concealed carry carry. So, think about it and where we are and Hush to hell up!

June 22, 2010

44magnum said:

doc I think the NRA does more good than harm for the right to keep the Second Amendment. The Marxists Obama is trying to destroy the Constitution and take our guns, fighting for any part of the Constitution is worth supporting. Strengthening the Second Amendment will help keep the First. I see Nazi Pelosi pulled the bill.

June 22, 2010

Norman H. Reece said:

... Hey "Mac", Since we still have a First Amendment right to free speech, please don't tell us to "Hush to hell up!"

June 23, 2010

Harold K. Wilkes said:

Hell no! The NRA may sell out but I won't. I would not advise anyone to attempt to take my firearms. Only at the risk of their lives. I think the Oathkeepers have the right idea and would advise anyone who values the Constitution to join. Cold dead hands is the only way this administration is going to have to think about. I love my country and the people who made it what it is. My dad was one of the Bedford Boys on D-day and I'll be one of them when the **** hits the fan.

June 23, 2010

Gary McReynolds said:

Political Tactics Say what you will about the NRA. But from a standpoint of political tactics, I believe what the NRA did was pretty clever. By putting themselves up front as an exemption in this bill, it brought all the other groups clamboring out of the woodwork looking for their exemption. I haven't always agreed with what the NRA has done in the past, but what they did here was used the same methods these greasy politicians used against them. They took a lot of heat from their membership but in the end it worked out well for the moment. Just be watchful that this bill isn't resurrected in another form at a later date.

June 23, 2010

Perimones said:

SSG "the result of which was to toss overboard roughly 100,000 other associations." Just wondering what the other "100,000" organizations are doing to stop this? Why is it always the NRA's duty to deal with those pin heads? Sounds like those other 100,000 organizations need to start speaking up if they want to be heard.

June 23, 2010

ThomNJ said:

... I also was upset at first (being an NRA member also) at this news; so I contacted the NRA and received an informative response. While the response was not exactly what I was looking for - it did get me thinking that the NRA took a seemingly politically expedient path - and in doing so, knew they would get some heat for it. But I do think that they were rather clever figuring the heat generated would cause others to take note - let's face it - how many bills does congress push through without our knowledge? This raised the visability of the issue, made other folks want their exemptions as well, and basically made the bill and that scum schumer out to be the trash that it is.

June 24, 2010

Tony R said:

can't take the NRA head on so attack it bit by bit... To the NRA, this is suicide. I for one will not renew my membership. You let satan come in and divide. You will be less in numbers. They will make you smaller and smaller till you are either gone or insignificant. Don’t think so? Look at what happened to the unions of this country. Why compromise? If they are asking you to compromise then you have clout and should defend your ground especially with the current crop of democrats. You hold your ground and let the November winds weed out these wacko’s. This will cost the NRA. Do you think the gay lobby would sell out the abortionists? They have different agendas but know they have clout when they stand together.

June 24, 2010

ariel said:

... replica lv bags replica handbags replica lv mens wallet

July 09, 2010