Wednesday, June 16, 2010

NRA sells out to Democrats, sells out free speech - Updated with phone numbers! CALL TODAY

Tomorrow the House will vote on the DISCLOSE Act which is Pelosi's version of key parts of the Campaign-Finance Reform legislation that the Supreme Court recently ruled unconstitutional. (Because parts of it were unconstitutional... simply put, they violated the free speech rights of citizens that gathered into groups to pool their money, like an environmental activist group or a right-to-life group for example, that might legally be considered a "corporation." It made it much more difficult to make political advertisements, political documentaries, political books, etc. and in particular banned this type of political speech within 30 days of a caucus and 60 days of a general election. For background info, see here and here.)

So now everyone's favorite Speaker of the House, Queen Nancy, is going to try and pass the DISCLOSE Act tomorrow, June 17th, which is similar to the previous law. Of course, if it's coming from San Fran Nan, you know it's got at least a few ugly surprises. From Reason.com:
The DISCLOSE Act’s purpose, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Chris Van Hollen and other “reformers,” is simply to require disclosure of corporate and union political speech after the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the government could not ban political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, and labor unions.

The bill, however, would radically redefine how the FEC regulates political commentary. A section of the DISCLOSE Act would exempt traditional media outlets from coordination regulations, but the exemption does not include bloggers, only “a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication…”
Not only to traditional media get a pass, but so do trade unions. Advocacy groups will lose much of their free speech rights - oh, except for those that make deals with the devils. One such group, the National Rifle Association. I know. I was stunned too.
The new agreement would 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, from the disclosure requirements. The NRA, with four million members, would fall into the exempted category and will not oppose the DISCLOSE Act now, according to Democratic sources.

So if you are a small organization that just started up to defend freedom, you are screwed. But if you’ve been collecting a large file of members for decades off the image of Charlton Heston while repeated screwing conservatives, you’ll be safe.

This is just the NRA not wanting competition for itself. If they were really committed to freedom, let alone the second amendment, they should be encouraging more freedom loving, second amendment loving organizations to rise and fight. Instead, they are collaborating with the left to shut out competition.
This is all too familiar. The big guys in town team up with the politicians to work together on "reform" and "regulations" that are supposedly good for us, when actually the desired outcome is to cement the big daddy's place in the industry and politician's place in DC. The WSJ weighs in here.

What can you do?

First, email the NRA, especially if you are a member, and tell them that if they continue to support this ban on our 1st Amendment right that you will join another gun-owner advocacy group.

*Chris Cox, the chief lobbyist at NRA. His address is CCox@NRAHQ.org.
*Please also cc David Keene, NRA Board member, at KeeneD@CarmenGroup.com

Second, call your representative. I will look for a list of Reps. to call and try to post that asap.

PHONE NUMBERS:
(the first number is the phone number, the second number is the fax number)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration 202-225-2801 202-225-5823
Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy 202-225-5315 202-226-6866
Rep. Jim Matheson (UT-02), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications 202-225-3011 (202) 225-5638
Altmire, Jason (PA-04) 202-225-2565 202-226-2274
Baca, Joe (CA-43) 202-225-6161 202-225-8671
Barrow, John (GA-12) 202-225-2823 202-225-3377
Berry, Marion (AR-01) 202-225-4076 202-225-5602
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02) 202-225-3631 202-225-2203
Boren, Dan (OK-02) 202-225-2701 202-225-3038
Boyd, Allen (FL-02) 202-225-5235 202-225-5615
Bright, Bobby (AL-02) 202-225-2901 202-225-8913
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18) 202-225-6131
Carney, Christopher (PA-10) 202-225-3731
Childers, Travis (MS-01) 202-225-4306 202-225-3549
Cooper, Jim (TN-05) 202-225-4311 202-226-1035
Costa, Jim (CA-20) 202-225-3341 202-225-9308
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28) 202-225-1640 202-225-1641
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03) 202-225-5406 202-225-3103
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04) 202-225-6831 202-226-5172
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02) 202-225-3915 202-225-6798
Gordon, Bart (TN-06) (202) 225-4231
Holden, Tim (PA-17) (202) 225-5546 (202) 226-0996
Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01) (202) 225-5311 (202) 225-0254
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07) (202) 225-2731 (202) 225-5773
Markey, Betsy (CO-04) 202.225.4676 202-225-5870
Marshall, Jim (GA-08) 202-225-6531 202-225-3013
Matheson, Jim (UT-02) (202) 225-3011 (202) 225-5638
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03) (202) 225-4031 (202) 226-3944
Michaud, Mike (ME-02) 202-225-6306 202-225-2943
Minnick, Walt (ID-01) (202) 225-6611 202) 225-3029
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05) (202) 225-2190 N/A
Moore, Dennis (KS-03) (202) 225-2865 (202) 225-2807
Murphy, Scott (NY-20) (202) 225-5614 (202) 225-1168
Nye, Glenn (VA-02) (202) 225-4215 202) 225-4218
Peterson, Collin (MN-07) (202) 225-2165 202) 225-1593
Salazar, John (CO-03) 202-225-4761 202-226-9669
Scott, David (GA-13) (202) 225-2939 202) 225-4628
Space, Zack (OH-18) (202) 225-6265 (202) 225-3394
Tanner, John (TN-08) (202) 225-4714 (202) 225-1765
Taylor, Gene (MS-04) 202-225-5772 202.225.7074

And as a reminder about how typically sleazy this bill is, check this out:
Facing wide-ranging blowback from an exemption tailored for the National Rifle Association, House Democratic leaders have decided to expand the carve-out from disclosure requirements in a campaign finance measure they are trying to pass this week.

The new standard lowers the membership requirement for outside groups from 1 million members to 500,000. Those groups would still need to have members in 50 states, have existed for 10 years and can accept no more than 15 percent of their funding from corporate or union sources. The broader bill, called the DISCLOSE Act, comes in response to the controversial Supreme Court decision in January that struck down limits on corporate and union spending in elections. The bill would force groups participating in elections to name their top donors, among other changes.

5 comments:

  1. So have you created a list of phone numbers for your fellow tea party members to call in regards to the 17 year-old being punched in the face by a Seattle police office.

    Are you rounding up people to protest about the civil rights being violated when the male police office abused the minor female.

    Or is that different?

    ReplyDelete
  2. So have you created a list of phone numbers for your fellow tea party members to call in regards to the 17 year-old being punched in the face by a Seattle police officer.

    Are you rounding up people to protest about the civil rights being violated when the male police office abused the minor female.

    Or is that different?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why are you so upset about preventing anonymous (secret) financial support of political groups? Seems to me that we all need to know who the actual backers of such groups are to prevent secret cabals. Our declaration of support of a political party by registering to vote is not kept secret. What's the difference? What I'm upset about is that some groups, such as AARP and NRA, are being exempted for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  4. hnjchild - that's exactly what I am fighting against, in fact, that's what the title of the post is about. I don't think larger, more established groups should get preferential treatment over smaller, newer groups. We agree on that completely. Also, no one is saying that there shouldn't be transparency, but the government has no right to pick and choose who is allowed the full range of freedom of speech and who is not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Krista Keating,
    People should stop messing with the police.
    Period. End of story. Do not push the police.
    I do not care what color you are. Do not attack the police. Period.
    You people are victims. Victims of life. Get over it. Read about Helen Keller. Go help somebody.

    ReplyDelete

I believe in free speech, including offensive speech, and especially political speech. Comments that are left on my blog do not necessarily represent my views nor do I necessarily endorse them. I am not responsible for other people's views or comments. That is how the 1st Amendment works.