PDA

View Full Version : Loophole Backfires, Blows up DISCLOSE Act




FrankRep
06-18-2010, 02:00 PM
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. by Bob Adelmann


Loophole Backfires, Blows up DISCLOSE Act (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3819-loophole-backfires-blows-up-disclose-act)


Bob Adelmann | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Friday, 18 June 2010


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 (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2808-the-coming-small-business-revolution-on-politics-after-citizens-united-v-fec), 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 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313030277318678.html?m od=googlenews_wsj) 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 (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5888) 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 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38713.html) 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061604221.html?hpid=opinionsbox1), 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 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37572) that she was pulling the bill from the floor vote scheduled for the next day due to lack of support.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3819-loophole-backfires-blows-up-disclose-act

FrankRep
06-18-2010, 02:00 PM
Related News:



The National Rifle Association (NRA) has confirmed that they willingly cut a deal with Congress at the expense of free speech that says: We will not stand in the way of the proposed Disclose Act, believed to infringe upon First Amendment rights, if you do not infringe on our Second Amendment rights. by Raven Clabough


NRA Trades First Amendment Rights for Second Amendment Rights (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3807-nra-trades-first-amendment-rights-for-second-amendment-rights)

Raven Clabough | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Thursday, 17 June 2010


Gun Owners of America > NRA
http://www.gunowners.org/

Nate-ForLiberty
06-18-2010, 02:04 PM
oh for the love of all that is decent and pure. Trading rights now?

"oh please sir, you can have my 1st amendment right, but don't take my 2nd."

f**kin tards.

Elwar
06-18-2010, 02:04 PM
You can probably just take those organizations that got the exemptions to figure out who runs Congress.

roho76
06-18-2010, 02:08 PM
Aren't they going to vote on it nest week instead of today? I wouldn't consider this a victory.

Anti Federalist
06-18-2010, 02:13 PM
Oh Jesus, now isn't that an unholy alliance, Chucky Schumer and NRA?

NRA is already backpedaling from this:


Is NRA changing stance on campaign finance exemption deal?

June 17, 12:19 PMGun Rights Examiner

David Codrea

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m6d17-Is-NRA-changing-stance-on-campaign-finance-exemption-deal

On Tuesday, we talked about an exemption being carved out for NRA on a campaign finance bill. This has kicked over a hornet's nest in the "pro-gun" community between NRA defenders and gun owners who oppose special privileges that will not be afforded to all political groups.

I just received the following first-hand report on my WarOnGuns blog that may (or may not) indicate an NRA reversal:

I just ended two calls, firstly the ILA and then Membership. ILA is now stating that they are OPPOSED to 5175 and when I pointed out the release from two days ago, I was told by the woman I spoke with, Lori: "That was two days ago and we are opposed now and a meeting is being held today on it." Was also told that this is due to the membership being "unhappy" with the stance previously taken and that the NRA is company who wants its membership happy.

Membership was quite brusque but "happy" to record my concerns and asked if I wanted ILA's number and told her I had already called. I asked if they had been receiving lots of calls about this and was told yes.

I wanted to verify this for myself, so I called ILA. The first option on their automated phone system is to hear their position on HR 5175, and the recording essentially parrots the NRA's published statement.

I held for a live representative and got "Seth." I identified myself, informed him of the blog comment, and asked him if it was true. It took a bit of dancing around through talking points to get to the conclusion that NRA will not actively oppose the bill if they get their carve out.

So what's the deal? Was my comment poster misinformed? Or was the person I spoke with limited in what can be disclosed at this time? Will a meeting be held today on this, and if so, will a new statement be issued?

Perhaps this will amount to nothing, and I expect criticism for posting an uncorroborated statement, but with the intense interest that has gripped the gun community over this story, I owe it to Gun Rights Examiner readers to put the raw intel out there. And who knows? If enough gun owners opposing this call, perhaps it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My suggestion? Call ILA yourself and make your opinion known: 800-392-8683.

UPDATE: The Newbius Papers is reporting a similar conversation:

I asked the rep if NRA would be changing their position. She said "yes" and that there would be an announcement. They are supposed to have a press release out shortly about it.

Again, this is not enough to say "confirmed," but it certainly is interesting that independent members would be given the same information.

UPDATE 2: If this is the restatement of position we've been looking for, it will deepen the divide and is begging to be fisked. The Lairds of Fairfax, having treated separately with Longshanks for their lands and titles, justify leaving the field to the peasant resisters.

FrankRep
06-24-2010, 09:24 PM
The DISCLOSE Act passes (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/the_disclose_act_passes.html)

Washington Post
June 24, 2010

Conservative groups are dealt a defeat -- one that they believe massive outreach an activism delayed by a week, at least -- as the DISCLOSE Act passes the House and heads to the Senate.

The legislation split conservatives and had activists griping about the NRA, which -- while not endorsing the bill -- got a carve-out that was written in a way that exempted them from campaign finance restrictions.

Original_Intent
06-24-2010, 09:37 PM
Armed march on Washington if this passes.

And I hope every self respecting NRA member drops their membership and joins a principled organization like the GOA or JPFO.

qh4dotcom
06-24-2010, 10:22 PM
Disclose Act, stimulus, health care bill, liberal Supreme Court judges, etc....all of that can be reversed with the issue many folks are ignoring and refuse to be open minded about...the birth certificate issue.

An immigrant from Kenya can't be signing the Disclose Act into law.

Original_Intent
06-24-2010, 10:38 PM
Disclose Act, stimulus, health care bill, liberal Supreme Court judges, etc....all of that can be reversed with the issue many folks are ignoring and refuse to be open minded about...the birth certificate issue.

An immigrant from Kenya can't be signing the Disclose Act into law.

True, but they will have still gone thru the rest of the legislative process and will just be waiting for the next legitimate president to sign into law. Which he will.

BadPenny
06-24-2010, 11:51 PM
An immigrant from Kenya can't be signing the Disclose Act into law.

Wanna bet?

Do you really think anyone gives a shit about the birth certificate anymore? I mean really? After all, O'Rielly proved that there was nothing to that whole argument.

Besides, the man is in power. He's directing the guns. He's nationalizing industries and mobilizing troops and taking over health care and housing and food and energy production.

You think their going to be stopped now because they lack proper documentation?

Wake up.

They care no more about Obama's birth certificate than they do about the constitution, and neither of those pieces of paper mean shit in what's happening now.

We're way past the point of resolution. This can't be fixed, it simply has to die. The freedom ship went off course over two hundred years ago, and now we're finally running into the rocks.

Even if you somehow managed to find proof positive, a number one, that Obama was not a natural born American citizen, do you really think anyone would care? Do you really think the government would listen to your cries? Do you really think Obama would be impeached? Or the laws he's already signed overturned?

And even if somehow that fantasy came true, do you really think the next guy would be any different? At all? In any conceivable way? I mean, he might take bribes from different companies, but do you think the shadowy concerns that count their profits in the billions of dollars the government spends are going to let something as pathetic as the will of the people change the course of history?

The only thing that can kill the system is economics. And it's happening right in front of you. They can ignore you all they want, but they can only ignore their financial situation for so long. The whole thing is on the verge of collapse.

But it won't be because you found an old video tape of his dad saying, "I hope no one ever asks where you were born Barry, because we all know you're not really an American citizen, wink wink."

Get over it. It doesn't matter if he's following the rules or not. Rules don't exist for these people, they only exist for you. And whenever the rules they made to oppress you become a problem for them, they just change them as they go.

He ran for office based on a series of lies and impossible promises and the consistent promotion of socialism and keynesianism. And he won. You think you can overcome that whining about birth certificates?

You do not have a roll to play in their system. Quit thinking you have a voice in their decision making.


-Rob

CCTelander
06-25-2010, 12:59 AM
Wanna bet?

Do you really think anyone gives a shit about the birth certificate anymore? I mean really? After all, O'Rielly proved that there was nothing to that whole argument.

Besides, the man is in power. He's directing the guns. He's nationalizing industries and mobilizing troops and taking over health care and housing and food and energy production.

You think their going to be stopped now because they lack proper documentation?

Wake up.

They care no more about Obama's birth certificate than they do about the constitution, and neither of those pieces of paper mean shit in what's happening now.

We're way past the point of resolution. This can't be fixed, it simply has to die. The freedom ship went off course over two hundred years ago, and now we're finally running into the rocks.

Even if you somehow managed to find proof positive, a number one, that Obama was not a natural born American citizen, do you really think anyone would care? Do you really think the government would listen to your cries? Do you really think Obama would be impeached? Or the laws he's already signed overturned?

And even if somehow that fantasy came true, do you really think the next guy would be any different? At all? In any conceivable way? I mean, he might take bribes from different companies, but do you think the shadowy concerns that count their profits in the billions of dollars the government spends are going to let something as pathetic as the will of the people change the course of history?

The only thing that can kill the system is economics. And it's happening right in front of you. They can ignore you all they want, but they can only ignore their financial situation for so long. The whole thing is on the verge of collapse.

But it won't be because you found an old video tape of his dad saying, "I hope no one ever asks where you were born Barry, because we all know you're not really an American citizen, wink wink."

Get over it. It doesn't matter if he's following the rules or not. Rules don't exist for these people, they only exist for you. And whenever the rules they made to oppress you become a problem for them, they just change them as they go.

He ran for office based on a series of lies and impossible promises and the consistent promotion of socialism and keynesianism. And he won. You think you can overcome that whining about birth certificates?

You do not have a roll to play in their system. Quit thinking you have a voice in their decision making.


-Rob

It always surprises me how naive some people can be. They actually expect brutal criminals to obey the "law."

Once, while I was still similarly naive, and still believed in the CONstitution, I was arguing a case in court on constitutional grounds, acting as my own attorney. The "law" was soundly and completely on my side. I was in the right and it was right there, in black and white, for everyone to see.

I made some constituitional argument or other, don't even remember the specifics off the top of my head, would have to dig up the transcript. The judges response I'll never forget. She said that if I brought "that document" up in "her" court again I'd be jailed for contempt.

I consider that the beginning of my true awakening, though it took years for me to shake myself totally free from my prior naivete.

Brutal sociopathic criminals don't give a shit about the "law." Period. That stuff only applies to the "little people." That's you and I, in case anyone isn't clear on that.

bunklocoempire
06-25-2010, 01:39 AM
Armed march on Washington if this passes.

And I hope every self respecting NRA member drops their membership and joins a principled organization like the GOA or JPFO.

From some gun forums I frequent, the die hard NRA members are basically saying "that's a shame" over the action and encouraging more folks to join the NRA, you know, to change it from within. :rolleyes:

But that to me is the mantra of the NRA be it guns or any right, "we got ours, so we're okay with it". :mad:

Bunkloco

qh4dotcom
06-25-2010, 06:41 AM
Wanna bet?

Do you really think anyone gives a shit about the birth certificate anymore? I mean really? After all, O'Rielly proved that there was nothing to that whole argument.

Besides, the man is in power. He's directing the guns. He's nationalizing industries and mobilizing troops and taking over health care and housing and food and energy production.

You think their going to be stopped now because they lack proper documentation?

Wake up.



I admit it is unlikely until the public starts to pay attention to the overwhelming evidence provided by the birthers. Most folks don't have common sense, that needs to change also.

Anyway, you never know...Nixon and Clinton both lied and both times the truth eventually came out.

osan
06-25-2010, 09:38 AM
Armed march on Washington if this passes.

And I hope every self respecting NRA member drops their membership and joins a principled organization like the GOA or JPFO.

Unfortrunately I am a life member of 25 years and they won't give any of that cash back. :(

They are fuckers, though.

osan
06-25-2010, 09:56 AM
The only thing that can kill the system is economics. And it's happening right in front of you. They can ignore you all they want, but they can only ignore their financial situation for so long. The whole thing is on the verge of collapse.

-Rob

Great post, except for this part. Economics in the way you almost certainly refer means next to nothing to these people, save that it serves as another tool of control. You can forget about "collapse", as it is unlikely to occur except in the ways and to the degrees they want. The world money system is a joke and the elite will prosper whether it remains or fails. They key to the extant system is control of real assets such as land, buildings, capital equipment, agricultural resources, minerals, petroleum, armed forces, and so on.

The elites have done a bang up job of painting the rest into such a corner that the controlling interests in those real resources are currently flowing into their hands. The rest is meaningless. If the monetary system fails, and I believe it is likely to, they will simply institute a new system... all to their advantage and your detriment. Your net wealth will plummet and theirs will skyrocket - make no mistake about it. They will control the vast and overwhelming majority of the REAL resources and money as we know it will mean nothing in terms of who will be wielding real power. Once all the significant reserves are under "proper" control, they will be able to collect rent from the rest of us as we will be reduced to a condition far worse than that of chattel slavery. It ain't coming - it is here.

Welcome to the brave new world. Big Brother knows what is best. I hope you all like it because we're all going to have to live with it for a very long time. We should all be so proud.

osan
06-25-2010, 10:11 AM
[quote=qh4dotcom;2765207]I admit it is unlikely until the public starts to pay attention to the overwhelming evidence provided by the birthers. Most folks don't have common sense, that needs to change also./quote]

You call for what has never been and is likely never to be. The mob is mindless and must be controlled or there is chaos, death, and destruction everywhere. People are idiots because they want to be that way, only they call it something else. They don't want to have or exercise common sense because that requires work and responsibility, both of which are to be avoided at any cost. Our politics are a microcosm of us. Career politicians don't want boyscouts amongst their circles because those cannot be readily controlled - they cannot be bought or otherwise blackmailed. They want everyone around them to be every bit as filthy-corrupt as they are so that it is best ensured that nobody will raise a fuss no matter what goes on. Joe Senator has dirt on Jane Representative, who has dirt on Amy Mayor, who has dirt on Joe Senator. It's a happy circle of life for them and they get away with damned near everything they want. I would say that most people are just like this. Were they not, this sort of thing would not be tolerated for a minute, so I'd say that before we get too bunched up in the undies, we should take a long look at ourselves.

erowe1
06-25-2010, 11:05 AM
NRA Trades First Amendment Rights for Second Amendment Rights its own power

Fixed it.

BadPenny
06-25-2010, 11:16 PM
Anyway, you never know...Nixon and Clinton both lied and both times the truth eventually came out.

To what effect? Were any laws they passed repealed? Any wars they started ended and troops recalled? Any people jailed under their command or because of laws they signed released from prison?

The truth has no power against these people. It is meaningless in the face of their guns. Even if you take one down, the system perpetuates itself.

Obama is a meaningless figurehead of no more importance than the utility he offers your masters. The moment that utility evaporates, he will be replaced. But you will still be a slave.

Feel free to spend your time trying to convince people that he's not a "real" American. Just don't get dissapointed when all your efforts amount to nothing.


-Rob