Year: 2010

We also know that the original proposition floated exempted all 501(c)(4)s:

Could the NRA or other groups succeed in watering down the bill enough to alienate the watchdog groups that now support it? Leonard, of the League of Women Voters, pointed to a proposed amendment from Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) as a possible deal-breaker for his group. The Shuler amendment [PDF] would exempt any 501(c)4 non-profit that finances election ads using only individual donations, as opposed to corporate money, from the bill’s disclosure and coordination rules.

That was from a week or so ago, so we know that was at least tried, but the sponsor was concerned that they’d lose the support of the groups pushing for DISCLOSE:

Looking at it, it would be a mistake to eliminate all [501(c)(4)] organizations from the conversation … That’s why we settled on a provision that said, for well-established C4 organizations that have dues-paying members that aren’t trying to hide from anybody — that would be the test.

So the deal would appear to be the result of the sausage grinder, rather than any purposeful conspiracy to freeze other groups out of the process, or crap on the First Amendment, as NRA is being accused of over at Red State.

They work slower than Internet speed, but here it is:

The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.

In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.

The NRA’s opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.

The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.

Thus, the NRA’s first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America’s lawful gun owners.

On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.

The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.

The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.

Unfortunately, I don’t think this really addresses much of the criticism of this move. But standing up for their point of view in the court of public opinion has never been one of NRA’s strong suits.

Continuing some discussion from the main thread today. I think probably the best argument people have for being pissed at NRA was they stopped opposing the bill after they were no longer affected by it, but left other groups to fend for themselves. This is part of why I would like to see this bill go down to defeat. But suppose NRA did not have the muscle to stop this bill entirely, but only to get itself exempted from it? I’m not saying that was definitely the case, but you can’t really predict legislative outcomes until you actually hold a vote, and see how the cards fall. You can have an idea of where people stand, and how they are going to vote, but you really don’t know until you tally up.

Maybe if NRA had continued opposition they would have defeated the bill. But maybe they wouldn’t have. So put yourself in NRA’s shoes for a moment. Pretend for the sake of argument you’re Chris Cox. The Dems seem intent on ramming an onerous campaign finance law down your throat, which affects your ability to execute on your core mission. So you decide to step outside your core issue and send a letter opposing DISCLOSE, and threatening to to grade on it. Then the Dems dangle an deal in front of you. Do you take it? Keep in mind if you don’t, and continue to oppose the bill, you’re rolling the dice on having the votes to stop it. Maybe you have them, and maybe you don’t. Keep in mind also if you’re offered a deal, and you extend the proverbial middle finger, you’re probably going to lose a lot of votes you might have had in the absence of the offer, complicating whether you’ll eventually be able to defeat it in entirety.

I don’t think the right answer here is easy. If you go for the big win and fail, you’re stuck with a hampering campaign finance law that might require you to disclose your membership list. How many members are you going to lose over that? Who else is going to be able to find out who NRA members are? Are people going to be retaliated against for NRA membership? If you’re Chris Cox, do you want to risk finding out the answers to these questions?

As for the other groups, the biggest of which is SAF, is a 501(3)(c). As a non-profit organized under that tax status, SAF is not affected  by this campaign finance law at all. Same goes for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is Alan Gottlieb’s smaller and lesser known 501(c)(4) would be affected by this, but to the best of my knowledge, CCRKBA doesn’t have a huge federal electioneering operation that would be put in danger by DISCLOSE. GOA is a 501(c)(4), but nor do they do any extensive electioneering work. So let’s look at state groups. CalGuns Foundation is a 501(c)(3), and unaffected. PAFOA is a 501(c)(4), but does not involve itself in electioneering, and so remains unaffected. Most NRA state associations are unaffected because they don’t do much electioneering on the federal level. Those speaking about other groups being thrown under the bus need to identify what other gun rights group has an extensive electioneering apparatus that represents a core part of its mission. I would argue there wasn’t much here to throw under the bus.

So you’re Chris Cox. Do you make the decision to stand firm and risk the entire apparatus that’s been a key to your effectiveness? Or do you take the deal. If you say it’s an easy decision, you’re a lot more confident than I would be in the same position.