search
top

NRA Gets Exempted from DISCLOSE Act

Looks like the Dems didn’t want to get graded on the Campaign Finance issue by NRA:

After the NRA threatened to oppose the legislation, which would require companies, unions and other parties to disclose the donors behind political ads, House Democrats negotiated with the NRA to find common ground. Under the agreement, the bill would exempt from the disclosure requirements, non-profit organizations that have over one million members, that have been in existence for more than 10 years, that have members in all 50 states, and that raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. The NRA falls under that category.

I’m glad they got themselves an exemption, but by no means does that let the Democrats off the hook for trying to stifle free speech like this. Campaign Finance laws protect incumbents, which is why I’m sure the Democratic leadership in Congress is pushing this hard before November.

21 Responses to “NRA Gets Exempted from DISCLOSE Act”

  1. Harry Schell says:

    Today’s compromise just sets the starting point for tomorrow’s negotitation.

    This bill is wrong period and NRA should not stand aside because the Dems gave them an exemption. Hell, that’s what Dems do to get their foot in the door and then they figure out how to justify expanding the law’s reach.

    How stupid are the people at NRA who negotiated this?

    What the hell are they thinking? Not my problem, I got my exemption?

    I was thinking about becoming a life member. I’ll have to rethink that.

  2. James says:

    This reeks. The NRA was against this. The Dems found a way to exempt the NRA and then the NRA sold every other organization out and said ok, now we’re ok with it. This is wrong. This is the NRA securing their position and gaining a monopoly to information every organization, big or small, should have.

  3. You should sell out basic political rights to your enemies for an exemption. I think all NRA members should write and email loud enough and long enough to let them know making anti-rights deals with Obama/Pelosi/Reid is unacceptable.

    http://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=1552

  4. Richard Allen says:

    Remember the NRA is a single purpose organization and that corporations haven’t exactly been friendly to the RKBA. And for that matter most of them have contributed more to the Dems. Screw them.

  5. Anon says:

    I recently stopped supporting the NRA.

    In GA it appears they tried to torpedo SB 308 which abolished the Public Gathering laws.

    Thankfully it did pass and was signed into law by Sonny Purdue.

    “Selling out are members one bill at a time.” should be their new
    tag line.

    Supporting socialism is not my idea for the advancement of 2A rights.

  6. Phil D. says:

    Another explanation for the NRA’s support of this bill is that they really like it. It will hurt all of the smaller, newer, or emerging gun rights organizations that are nipping at their heels and calling them on their sellouts.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Like what? GOA, which has been around since the late 70s? SAF, who are a 501(c)(3) and not subjected to this bill at all? JPFO, also a 501(c)(3) non-profit.

    What other gun groups have a huge election apparatus that are affected by this law?

  8. Phil D. says:

    Sebastian: “Like what? GOA, which has been around since the late 70s? SAF, who are a 501(c)(3) and not subjected to this bill at all? JPFO, also a 501(c)(3) non-profit.”

    The bill is reported to exempt organizations that have over
    one 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. . .

    GOA has less than a million dues paying members, and has never had more than about 350,000 I believe. SAF’s motives are largely fund-raising, so it seldom if ever resists the NRA. Emerging organizations like NAGR appear not to qualify for exemption. Independent state groups which exist in many states (OFF, GRNC, etc.) would almost certainly not qualify. And if the legislation can be easily circumvented by clever reorganization, then it was never worth resisting in the first place.

    The NRA either meant what it said about free speech principles, before it got a special carve-out, or it didn’t. Will it now say freedom of speech belongs only to Establishment organizations?

    • Bitter says:

      Phil, SAF was and never will be restricted by this bill. They cannot legally engage in the activities that DISCLOSE covers because of their organization structure. It has nothing to do with the “NRA exemption.” This was never going to impact them in the first place. Most of the state groups you mention don’t engage in this level of political activity either. Many are (c)3’s, and those which are not almost exclusively focus on state candidates for the kinds of activities that federal campaign finance laws typically cover. Go educate yourself on the different types of organizations and what they can lawfully do in the first place. It will help you better understand how different organizations work in the big picture.

  9. Phil D. says:

    Bitter: I think you might need to educate yourself on what a lot of state level gun rights groups in other states actually do.

    • Bitter says:

      Oh, I’m very familiar with what many of them do. But most actions don’t fall within the scope of the federal laws.

  10. Sebastian says:

    Really? I guess having worked for one doesn’t count for anything.*

  11. Gee – I wonder what other organizations might meet the standards “carved out” for the NRA?

    One which jumps immediately to mind is SEIU.

    Beware of Socialists bearing gifts!!

    DD

  12. Sebastian says:

    SEIU doesn’t meet the criteria. HSUS does. So does AARP.

  13. Frank R. Parish says:

    The NRA needs to change the first sentence of its “Statement on H. R. 5175” to read:
    The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional unless the NRA is specifically exempted from those restrictions. Then those restrictions are acceptable.
    Like Tony Hayward’s comment that “He would like to get his life back”, this was a huge gaffe and needs to be corrected RIGHT NOW.

  14. Sebastian says:

    You can believe something is unconstitutional, but not spend your resources opposing it.

  15. Ross Wolf says:

    Before Hitler dissolved German Parliament, he got support for passing controversial legislation from corporations by bribing them with special breaks inserted in legislation that economically injured their competitors that produced similar products. Bribed corporations were so greedy, they didn’t realize Hitler was undermining the collective power of the corporations, turning the corporations against each other so they could not oppose Hitler’s policies. Subsequently the corporations standing separately and no longer together, Hitler was able to strong-arm, control and shutdown corporations he gave breaks to earlier.

    Will the Second Amendment come to an end in similar fashion?

  16. Frank says:

    Hey, Sebastian, that’s kinda like saying “I think the NRA is a good organization but I don’t have to spend my resources supporting it.”

  17. Sebastian says:

    Yes, it is. You don’t have to spend your resources supporting it if you don’t like the opportunity cost. But opportunity costs are real. If NRA spends a lot of time and money fighting this, like they did over McCain-Feingold, and eventually lost, that has a real cost in terms of what’s diverted away from other endeavors that are part of their core mission.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. This is how it happens « - [...] So what did congress do? They don’t scrap the bill, they exempted the NRA from it. [...]
top