Disgusted though I am with the NRA, I still never thought I'd see the day when the NRA would get behind a bill sponsored by Chuck Schumer, one of the Big Four anti-gun zealots in Congress (Big Three, now that Ted Kennedy's dead). But it's being reported in various places that the NRA is backing H.R.5175, "the DISCLOSE Act", a bill that is alleged to effectively curtail First Amendment rights for grassroots organizations across the United States and violate the privacy of their members, in return for language in the bill that exempts the NRA. And, by sheer coincidence, the NRA is the ONLY ostensibly-pro-gun organization that it exempts; the exemption is written in such a way as to not cover Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or any of the small regional organizations such as the Virginia Citzens Defense League, MASS-GUNS, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, or Pro-Gun New Hampshire, or special-interest pro-gun groups such as the Second Amendment Sisters and the Pink Pistols. (In fact, it's possible that the ONLY qualifying organizations are the NRA and AARP.)
[...] the National Rifle Association said the original bill was unconstitutional and "would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA's right to free political speech," suggesting that putting restrictions on campaign activity also limits political speech.
On the positive side, the act requires that corporate backers of campaign-related ads disclose their support, bars government contractors and TARP recipients from making "campaign-related expenditures", and extends the ban on foreign nationals and foreign corporations making contributions or expenditures to influence U.S. elections to also apply to US domestic corporations controlled by foreign nationals. It also contains language placing some limits upon campaign activities by unions, but it is duplicate language that actually adds nothing not already covered by existing FEC regulations. There are various other reporting requirements; find a summary of the act here.
The downside of the Act is that it not only requires any organization that provides $10,000 or more of campaign-related services or donations in any given year to provide Congress with a list of all donors of more than $1000, but, more worryingly, reportedly contains language that appears to require grassroots organizations to provide Congress with complete membership lists. (That said, I haven't been able to verify the existence of such language myself. It's not immediately apparent in the Thomas summary.)
The NRA is strongly opposed to having to comply with those restrictions, and states that they threaten First Amendment rights (an argument which, on the face of it, I believe has merit if the rumored membership-list provision actually exists) ... but is apparently just fine with them as long as they don't apply to the NRA. (It should be noted, though, that the NRA is spinning the deal as having been imposed upon it in order to prevent it from having a voice in final discussions on the bill.) VCDL has this to say:
Let me not mince words - this appears to be an unholy alliance between Nancy Pelosi and the NRA, which would wipe out the NRA's competition.
If you snuggle up with a rattlesnake you are going to get bit. The NRA is playing a fool's game if they think they will survive this unscathed. Nancy Pelosi is not their friend now, nor will she ever be.
For their own self-interest, the NRA is apparently choosing to drive, or at least ride in, the bus that is going to run over the rest of us.
So ... anyone out there who still doesn't believe that the NRA has sold out?