Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL)

Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
PO. Box 513, Newington, VA 22122 • 804-639-0600 • 703-372-3285 • 757-271-3705 • 540-446-5783

06/17/10 - Two more articles on NRA and HR 5175

Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This in the Washington Post by an NRA Board member nonetheless: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061604221.html NRA exemption shows campaign disclosure bill's cynical, fatal flaws By Cleta Mitchell Thursday, June 17, 2010 The cynical decision this week by House Democrats to exempt the National Rifle Association from the latest campaign finance regulatory scheme is itself a public disclosure. It reveals the true purpose of the perversely named Disclose Act (H.R. 5175): namely, to silence congressional critics in the 2010 elections. The NRA 'carve-out' reaffirms the wisdom of the First Amendment's precise language: 'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.' Congress can't help itself. Since 1798, with the Alien and Sedition Acts, incumbent politicians have yearned for legal duct tape for their opponents' mouths. The Disclose Act is a doozy of a muzzle. 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. Since the court's January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations cannot be constitutionally prohibited from making independent candidate-related expenditures, Democrats have been hyperventilating at the notion that corporations might spend millions of dollars criticizing them. To foreclose that possibility, the Disclose Act would impose onerous and complicated 'disclosure' restrictions on organizations that dare to engage in constitutionally protected political speech and on corporations that dare to contribute to such organizations. Democrats would effectively neuter the court's decision by requiring the names of multiple donors to be recited in ads (thus shrinking the time spent on actual speech), requiring the CEO of a corporate donor to personally appear in campaign-related ads, expanding the coverage period to virtually the entire election year, and including myriad other rules that the NRA described last month as 'byzantine' and an 'arbitrary patchwork of reporting and disclosure requirements.' The NRA's wheel-squeaking bought it an exemption from those requirements. Tea Party organizations arising spontaneously since 2009? Out of luck. Online organizations with large e-mail followings but perhaps no formal dues structure? Forget it. Receiving less attention than the NRA 'carve-out' but no less cynical is the bill's sop to organized labor: Aggregate contributions of $600 or more would be disclosed. Why start at $600? Why not $200 or, say, $500? Because most union members' dues aggregate less than $600 in a calendar year and thus members' contributions to labor's campaign- related spending wouldn't need to be disclosed . . . even to the union members whose dues are spent for political purposes. In Citizens United, the court held that the First Amendment doesn't permit Congress to treat different corporations differently; that the protections afforded political speech arise from the Constitution, not Congress. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to a congressional power to license the speech of some while denying it to others. The NRA carve-out is a clear example of a congressional speech license. The ostensible purpose of the legislation is benign 'disclosure,' upheld in Citizens United as permissible under the First Amendment. Even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed skepticism about the constitutional infirmity of disclosure requirements in another case argued this term; Scalia intoned in oral argument that 'running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage.' That's true. Indeed, the law upheld in Citizens United requires all donors to candidate-related expenditures to be publicly disclosed to the FEC in a timely manner. But the Disclose Act isn't really intended to elicit information not currently required by law. The act serves notice on certain speakers that their involvement in the political process will exact a high price of regulation, penalty and notoriety, using disclosure and reporting as a subterfuge to chill their political speech and association. It is only disclosure, say the authors. And box-cutters are only handy household tools . . . until they are used by terrorists to crash airplanes. 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. The writer is a partner at Foley & Lardner who works in campaign finance law and is a member of the NRA's board of directors. ------------------------------------------ This by Dave Workman: http://tinyurl.com/29r6lul ------------------------------------------ The latest NRA response: We appreciate some NRA members' concerns about our position on H.R. 5175, the 'DISCLOSE Act.' Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts. We have never said we would support any version of this bill [PVC: and VCDL didn't claim they supported the bill, only that they were turning a blind eye to it once they got their exemption]. 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 [PVC: before they got their exemption]. 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' 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 NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice. We didn't 'sell out' to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, 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. [PVC: I don't really know what to say about this line of thinking.] There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It's easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some so-called First Amendment principle - unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do. The NRA is a bipartisan, 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. [PVC: Throwing grassroots under the bus is hardly protecting NRA's member's interests.] Should you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact us again at any time. Sincerely, Michael Land NRA-ILA Grassroots Division ------------------------------------------- ***************************************************************************