NRA selling out again?

[unixronin]

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?

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I've told you before that my dad is an NRA EVC (Election Volunteer Coordinator).

I don't recall you having mentioned it before, but will take your word for it.

If this is an attempt to "frame" the NRA, then it's been an effective one and the NRA has done a poor job of getting the word out that it's not a party to this deal. I've actually seen it claimed that the bill was de facto dead in committee until the exemption was put forward.

Of course, that said, I don't actually see what's so terrible about the bill itself, given that I can't actually find the alleged membership-disclosure language anywhere in the Thomas listing of the bill, and that it as far as I can tell doesn't actually prohibit any speech by the public or by lobbying organizations; it merely requires lobbying organizations to disclose where their funds came from (which could be enlightening in many cases on the Left, I think; I'd be curious to see how many liberal campaign ads had George Soros' name at the top of the list, for one thing), and bars government contractors etc from campaign activity close to an election (which I also have no problem with, though I'd be happier if it simply barred all corporations from activity intended to influence the political process, period). Is the NRA afraid of having the public see where its funds come from, or does it have some other objection? I find the available statements unclear exactly what it's objecting to.



All that said, and with or without this issue, I personally still think that the NRA has sold out. It has become too unwilling to take the risk of losing for a chance at winning, too willing to compromise, and too focused on maintaining its flow of money and its privileged inside-the-Beltway status.

[lebo-superman.livejournal.com]

"All that said, and with or without this issue, I personally still think that the NRA has sold out. It has become too unwilling to take the risk of losing for a chance at winning, too willing to compromise, and too focused on maintaining its flow of money and its privileged inside-the-Beltway status."

I tend to agree with that. I've been getting the impression for a few years that Wayne LaPierre has been acting like he's afraid of winning. I guess he's thinking that if there was a full TKO on gun rights, then his job would be nothing but ceremonial.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Exactly. "He who dares, wins." You cannot win if you don't play, and if you're going to play you have to accept the possibility of losing. You'll never win big by playing it safe. But Wayne LaPierre and Tanya Metaksa can't see that.

Personally, if I were appointed president of the NRA tomorrow, there would be NOTHING I WOULD LIKE MORE than to be able to go back to primarily focusing on promoting marksmanship and firearms safety, and organizing instruction and high-power matches, instead of spending all my time dicking around with Congress. But I think the current NRA leadership has lost sight of the REAL purpose of the NRA, and can only see it as primarily a lobbying organization that must not at any cost lobby itself out of a job that isn't actually its real job in the first place.