DISCLOSE Act shields Democrat-leaning groups from disclosure requirements

[bobbyw24]

Washington is shocked top Democrats gave the National Rifle Association – one of the most powerful lobbies in town – its own loophole in legislation designed to increase disclosure requirements on campaign spending following the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

The untold story is that Democrats assuaged organized labor’s early opposition to the bill by tailoring its provisions to eke out space for unions.

For example, restrictions on companies that received government bailouts during the financial crisis apply to businesses, but not unions: Under the DISCLOSE Act, General Motors can’t tell you who to vote for, but the United Auto Workers union can.

And consider the bill’s laborious record-keeping rules for certain types of donations. Corporations, unions, non-profits and 527 groups will, for the first time, be required to report donors who give more than $600 if they engage in “express” advocacy — urging voters to support one candidate or another by name.

Conveniently, as Republican staff on the House Administration Committee point out, average union dues in 2004 were $377 – below the $600 threshold. Since unions get the vast majority of their funds from member dues, “the new threshold for reporting is likely to have little effect on unions … but a huge effect on associations and advocacy groups,” a GOP summary of the bill says.

Government contractors with contracts of more than $7 million are not permitted to engage in express advocacy. Unions that receive their dues from the taxpayer-funded salaries of public sector employees face no such restriction. Neither do recipients of grants.

The bill includes strict rules on foreign-owned businesses engaging in express advocacy. The rules are so strict, critics fear, they will ensnare American companies with American employees and revenue. For instance, if a foreign entity owns, directly or indirectly, 20 percent or more of a company’s shares, that company isn’t allowed to urge citizens to vote for candidates, even if it’s based in the U.S.

No such restrictions are placed on unions. Under the bill, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions could have a heavily-regulated field day if they really wanted to.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/21/disclose-act-shields-democrat-leaning-groups-from-disclosure-requirements/

[FrankRep]

http://www.jbs.org/templates/political/images/jbsheader.jpg


Email Congress!
http://www.votervoice.net/Groups/JBS/Advocacy/?IssueID=22265&SiteID=-1



Protect Free Speech -- Reject the Campaign Disclosures Bill, H.R. 5175 (http://www.jbs.org/us-constitution-blog/6362)


Ann Shibler | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
Friday, 18 June 2010


UPDATE, June 18: "Loophole Backfires, Blows up DISCLOSE Act (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3819-loophole-backfires-blows-up-disclose-act)." However, you should still contact Congress (http://www.votervoice.net/Groups/JBS/Advocacy/?IssueID=22265&SiteID=-1). Exhibiting a complete lack of dedication to Constitutional principles, lobbying instead for self-preservation, the NRA has brokered a deal (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003683423) with Democrat House leaders. In what is really a shameful and traitorous move, the NRA will stand down, offering no opposition to the DISCLOSE Act -- Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act -- H.R. 5175 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/show), in exchange for a huge reporting exemption.

The DISCLOSE legislation was introduced in response to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3049-mccain-feingold-and-free-speech) that unexpectedly upheld the Constitution and free speech. President Obama and special interest groups along with liberals wanted to curb the effects of that Supreme Court decision, so Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-Md.) who called the Supreme Court’s ruling “radical,” and 114 cosponsors acquiesced by introducing H.R. 5175.

The bill would require all groups, corporations, advocacy and lobbying groups, unions, etc., to reveal donations used to support political campaigns. “The top five donors to a group underwritten by corporate or labor money would have to be listed on the screen,” of TV ads explained CQ Today. In addition chief executives would have to appear at the end of political TV advertisements that are funded by their organizations.

The details of the deal the NRA carved out for itself were revealed by the Washington Post:



The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 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. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources.


Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) who normally supports gun rights, said he was satisfied with the new language. Cosponsor Walter Jones (R. N.C.) who didn’t know the details as of Tuesday evening said he would support the bill anyway. Rep. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had another opinion though: “If there is one thing Americans loathe about Washington, it’s the back-room dealing to win the vote of organizations with power and influence at the expense of everyone else. Taxpayers are still fuming over a health care process where their money was thrown around like a high roller in a hotel lobby to win last-minute votes, and now the same back-room dealing is being repeated with their freedom of speech.”

“This is nothing more than a special deal for the NRA, negotiated behind closed doors, without transparency or public input,” said Jeff Patch, communications director for the Center for Competitive Politics, a free speech advocacy group. He noted that the bill would put a financial strain on small grass-roots organizations with limited resources to comply with “onerous” disclosure requirements, literally taking them out of the political game.

It’s really disturbing that an organization that is supposedly dedicated to ensuring Second Amendment rights for all wouldn’t be just as concerned about helping to ensure First Amendment rights for everyone as well. Instead they are willing to muzzle themselves regarding this DISCLOSE bill and help this onerous legislation snuff out free speech for the little guys as long as they have their own exemption. But one cannot help wondering if there will be more ramifications down the road; will strings be pulled and the NRA made to dance to a new political tune or be muzzled on other pieces of legislation? Certainly their credibility is now greatly in question with this cavalier politics-as-usual attitude.

Regardless of the NRA’s private exemption, H.R. 5175 should be opposed by all who value free speech. Regulating the raising and spending of money on political campaigning is not the government’s job. In fact, such a thing is unconstitutional. As Jack Kenny wrote (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3049-mccain-feingold-and-free-speech) earlier this year, "[C]orporations are made up of people who have constitutionally-protected rights. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that people lose their right to free speech when joined together in a corporation. And though money is not speech, it is a medium of exchange used to pay for many things, including newsprint and printing presses, TV cameras, microphones, and broadcast towers, as well as advertising." Will the government soon be limiting what publishers and media outlets can spend on their own privately owned businesses that produce newspapers, magazines, or TV broadcasts?

See Raven Clabough's article in The New American magazine, “NRA Trades First Amendment Rights for Second Amendment Rights (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3807)," for further information about the DISCLOSE Act.

Click here to let your representative and senators know (http://www.votervoice.net/Groups/JBS/Advocacy/?IssueID=22265&SiteID=-1) that you are against this unconstitutional regulatory scheme.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/us-constitution-blog/6362