Lars Larson is a conservative and member of the NRA. He has publicly spanked the NRA on the air, and said he will likely drop his membership, and all but asking others to do the same. Why is he pissed? I didn't catch the complete details but it has to do with campaign contributions. After the Supreme Court nullified parts of McCain-Feingold, congress is making new similar legislation. The NRA is the biggest roadblock to this legislation happening. According to Lars, the NRA and congress came to an agreement. As long as a prevision is in the bill that doesn't affect the NRA's contributions, then they will not try to stop this legislation. Problem is, they are willing to allow congress to hamper the first amendments for others.
thoughts anyone? If I have time later, I will try to find out more. In the meantime, maybe someone else has such an interest.
If I recall, the provision that keeps the NRA exempt from the new proposed law is something to the effect that they are in all 50 states, been around for x number of years, and have at least y number of members. Real nice to allow smaller organization be stifled, isn't it?
I forget, but there is that saying where the author says he didn't stand up, because it didn't affect him, them at the end, he says something like "then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak out."
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Here's an audio clip of Lars and the NRA VP:
Wayne La Pierre, NRA Executive VP
Wednesday, Jun 16, 2010
The interview starts right away, but is 13 minutes long.
The NRA will not lobby against corporate campaign restrictions if they are excepted? Something like that?
Are you pissed at the NRA, WC?
Not sure how to really react to this, so I will go with my first instinct here over a reasoned response.
If the above interpretation of your quote is really accurate:
you, dip .
Please stop comparing limitations on money to polical campaigns to mass murder. It's disrespectful in the extreme to the millions of people who died for you to cynically use their torture and horrible deaths for some cheap political point.
here's an excerpt:
After the Supreme Court decided in January to dissolve the cap on how much money a corporation can give to a campaign, congressional Democrats crafted legislation in both chambers that would require stricter methods of [COLOR=#005497 ! important][COLOR=#005497 ! important]campaign [COLOR=#005497 ! important]finance[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] disclosure. Rep. Chris Van Hollen's DISCLOSE Act would require special interest group officials to physically appear at the end of campaign ads they sponsor, acknowledging their campaign contributions, and to disclose their campaign related expenditures on their websites.
But the National Rifle Association said the original bill was uncons utional 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.
So the House amended the bill to exempt organizations that have over 1 million members, have been in existence for at least a decade, and receive less than 15 percent of their funding from corporations. The NRA says it has 4 million members.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...bill-deal.html
Yes. By this action, they have moved from the idea of protecting all citizens to only their own group. They are probably the only group that meets the criteria to remain free to speak. Once all the others lose their voice, don't you think gun hating liberals will zero in on them again?
I missed this. Came out a couple days ago:
Republicans, liberal groups oppose proposed campaign-finance exemption for NRA
First three paragraphs:
A proposed campaign-finance deal aimed at mollifying the National Rifle Association came under attack Tuesday from Republican opponents and some liberal advocacy organizations, who say they object to exempting a few large groups from having to disclose their top political donors.
House legislation proposed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) would require most nonprofit groups, corporations and unions to identify top donors and other information related to spending on advertising and other political activities. The bill is aimed at pushing back against a Supreme Court ruling that opened the way for corporate and union spending for elections.
But under a proposed exemption announced Monday, longstanding national groups that have more than 1 million members and that receive 15 percent or less of their funding from corporations would not have to abide by a key requirement to disclose top donors. The proposal was aimed clearly at the NRA -- which signaled it would oppose the legislation otherwise -- but legislative aides said the exemption could also apply to a handful of other large organizations, including the AARP seniors group and the Humane Society of the United States.
There is an upside to the bill:
From Deal would exempt NRA and others from campaign finance disclosures:The AFL-CIO and other unions would not be covered by the proposed exemption, a legislative aide said. [Eds. note: An earlier version of this report incorrectly stated that the AFL-CIO would be covered under the compromise.]
the NRA, and the balless politicians who caved and take the funds.
America is ed.
How do disclosure requirements for electoral contributions cause corporations and unions to lose their voice?
I'm under the impression there is more to the legislation. I haven't seen it yet but haven't seen a "HR xxxx" to look up. If it is only for the disclosure of donor names, then nobody should have issue with that, including me. Thing is, that's been a requirement all along.
You said freedom of speech was imperilled for all but the NRA.
Now you say you're unfamiliar with the bill or what it does.
I guess it was enough for you that Lars Larson was pissed off. That kind of absolved you -- not from passing judgment on it -- but from knowing even the first thing about it, before you passed judgment.
Lemming!
This guy doesn't complain for trivial reasons. There is something more to the bill. I just don't know what it all is.
I just found this and started reading it. I think this is the bill, but I'm not sure:
H. R. 5175
This is attached to it:
House Report 111-492
near the end:
THE RUSH TO BAN SPEECH INDIRECTLY
The bill's sponsors appear to believe that by making disclosure its most prominent--and even eponymous--purpose they can perform an act of legerdemain and convince people that its purpose really is disclosure. No one should be fooled.
Under current law, most organizations that engage in the political process already are subject to extensive reporting and disclosure requirements. Political committees--including candidate committees, party committees, PACs, and others--must report regularly to the FEC on their receipt and disbursement of funds. They must itemize contributions from donors giving more than $200 per year. In most cases they must file electronically, and as the election becomes closer their reports become more frequent. Groups organized under section 527 of the IRS code, if they are not already covered in the category above, must file as though they were political committees.
In addition to these en ies that must report all of their activity regularly to the FEC, anyone making an expenditure for an independent expenditure (over $250) or an electioneering communication (over $10,000) must report that expenditure to the FEC. In sum, there is no shortage of reporting and disclosure required under current law.
With political committees and 527s covered by existing law and 501(c)(3) charitable organizations banned from political activity, the remaining targets of this bill's disclosure requirements are 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) trade associations. While these organizations are permitted to make political expenditures under the tax code and retain their tax-exempt status, such expenditures may not be their primary activity. As such, 501(c) organizations by definition are engaged in extensive non-political activities that form their primary activity and establish their iden y (shown, for example, by the clearly identified interests of 501(c)(4) organizations such as the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association). The sponsors have not explained why this iden y is not enough information for voters, and must be supplemented by delving into the organizations' sources of funds--especially when donations identified for use in political spending already must be disclosed.
This very effort to force disclosure of sources of funds raises serious cons utional concerns. The Supreme Court found in NAACP v. Alabama that the government could not compel these organizations to reveal their donors publicly; the only exception to this rule has been where the donation is given specifically for use in a political expenditure. The bill turns this presumption on its head--the new rule is that donations above a certain amount must be disclosed unless they are specifically excluded from use for political expenditures.
In an effort to avoid this cons utional limitation, the bill's authors create a new category or political en y with reporting obligations: the `Campaign Related Activity Account' (`CRAA'). Depending on a convoluted set of cir stances, the threshold above which disclosure is required may be $6,000 or $10,000 if an organization established a CRAA and $600 or $1,000 if it does not. In an effort to partially mitigate the new compliance burden of this system and slightly reduce the legal thicket one must navigate to comply with the campaign finance law, Representative McCarthy offered an amendment to set the disclosure threshold for organizations with a CRAA at the same level as the current threshold for itemized disclosure by political committees. This amendment was rejected on a party-line vote.
The most likely effect of this bill's disclosure regime is not to provide the public with useful information, but to impose still-higher compliance costs and deter political speech. Indeed, from the statements of the sponsors it appears that is precisely the intent. We commend attention to the detailed critique of this regime in the letter from eight former FEC commissioners that is part of the markup record. We also condemn the use of a salutary goal--disclosure of money spent to influence politics--to conceal an effort that is actually designed to stifle political speech for partisan gain.
The bill includes another attempt to stifle speech that masquerades as adding information for the public. The new `stand by your ad' requirement for organizations making political expenditures gives every appearance of being designed to restrict speech. The rule is modeled on one in BCRA for candidates. In a 2007 article, Bob Bauer (then a campaign finance lawyer for Democrats including candidate Barack Obama, now the White House Counsel) said of the BCRA rule, `this requirement makes sense only if its true use is clearly identified: to regulate the content of ads.' 4
[Footnote] Bauer argues that the disclosure provides no benefit to the audience, which assumes the ad is approved by the candidate who paid for it. Likewise, existing law will require the sponsors subject to this bill's `stand by your ad' rule to disclose that they paid for the ad, so there is no added disclosure benefit to the viewer.
[Footnote 4: `Disclosure in an Expanded Regulatory System,' 6 Election Law Journal 38, 45-46 (2007).]
On the other hand, the disclosures required in this bill are exceptionally onerous. The head of an organization paying for an ad must identify himself or herself by name and le and state the name of the organization twice. If there is a `significant funder' that person must also identify himself or herself by name and le and state the name of their organization three times. The result can be--in addition to the currently required disclosure of who paid for the ad--two names, two les, and no fewer than five recitations of organizational names. One could reasonably expect this to consume more than half of a 30-second ad, and our experiments show that indeed it does.
In the subs ute amendment offered by the majority there is a feeble attempt to mitigate this burden on speech by calling on the FEC to promulgate regulations to determine when the disclaimer cons utes a hardship by consuming a disproportionate amount of the ad's content. This is another example of the bill's politically-motivated sleight-of-hand--the disclaimer rule becomes effective 30 days after enactment, but this hardships exemption is not effective until the FEC issues regulations. Thus the exemption is likely to be nonexistent during the 2010 elections.
In his testimony before this Committee, former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson said, `When we are going to restrict the ability of individuals in this country to speak and make it a crime if they get it wrong, we have a very solemn obligation to make it very, very clear.' This statement emphasizes the critical importance of campaign finance laws that are clear and easily understood--a standard this bill badly fails to meet. The Supreme Court has said `political speech . . . is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment.' 5THE RUSH TO BAN SPEECH DIRECTLY
The sponsors of this bill like to describe it in gauzy, general terms as being about `disclosure,' and even went so far as to bestow that misleading label on it. However, the le of Section 101 begins `Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communications' and the le of Section 102 begins `Application of the ban on contributions and expenditures.' The bill explicitly and forthrightly bans certain en ies from political speech, and it does so in a way that clearly is designed for partisan bias.
In its first substantive section, the bill bans independent expenditures and electioneering communications (which we will call `political spending' or `political expenditures') by companies holding a government contract worth $50,000 or more (an amount revised to $7,000,000 in the Committee markup). The bill claims in its findings that this will prevent government officials from influencing the contracting process based on political spending, and will prevent contractors from feeling pressure to make political expenditures.
What the bill ignores is that those arguments apply with equal or even greater force to unions representing government employees. Those unions negotiate directly with the government on the terms and conditions of employment, and their own revenues depend on having government employees pay them for this service. As such, union representatives have exactly the same incentives to influence contract decisions by government officials and exactly the same risks of being subjected to pressure to make political expenditures.
Despite this symmetry of potential for corruption or its appearance, the bill singles out corporate government contractors and ignores unions. Preventing quid pro quo corruption is the only remaining governmental interest sufficient to justify limitations on political speech. By ignoring this interest with respect to some speakers (unions) while emphasizing it with respect to others (business corporations), the majority undermines the cons utional basis of Congress' authority to act.
Representative Lungren offered an amendment to provide that the prohibition on political spending by government contractors would also apply to unions representing government employees. The amendment was rejected on a party-line vote. Representative Lungren offered another amendment to provide that labor unions representing employees of government contractors would be covered by the ban in the same way as the contractors themselves. That amendment also was rejected on a party-line vote.
Other recipients of government funds are subject to the same possibility of corruption as contractors. This concern is shown by the bill's ban on political spending by TARP recipients, and applies with equal force to recipients of government grants. Grantees may also make political expenditures to influence the grant-award process or feel pressured to make expenditures in return for receiving grants. Recognizing this, Representative Harper offered an amendment to prohibit organizational recipients of federal funds (such as ACORN) from making political expenditures. The amendment was rejected.
The second substantive section of the bill bans political spending by an expanded range of foreign nationals. Proponents of the bill use the example of foreign sovereign wealth funds to justify expanding the existing limits on foreign activity in American elections. Recognizing this concern, Representative Lungren offered an amendment to replace the bill's language on foreign nationals with a simpler, more enforceable two-part section. The first part would codify the existing FEC regulation prohibiting foreign nationals making decision on spending to influence American elections. The second would ban political spending by en ies majority-owned by a foreign government or political party. The amendment was rejected. Because the description of sovereign wealth funds in the amendment was questioned, he then proposed adopting the first part of the amendment, codifying the current FEC regulatory prohibition. That amendment was rejected on a party-line vote.
While the bill prohibits political spending by corporations based on the nationality of their owners or directors, it includes no similar provisions to ensure that the massive political spending by labor unions is untainted by foreign influence. To correct this disparity, Representative Lungren proposed an amendment to require that union chief executives make a certification similar to that required of corporate chief executives attesting that no dues in the union treasury funding the political spending were received from foreign nationals. This amendment was rejected on a party-line vote. The majority opposed the amendment based on the burden it would impose on unions to verify the citizenship status of the members whose funds would be used for political expenditures--yet the majority refused to recognize the burden on corporations of verifying the citizenship status of shareholders to determine whether the foreign nationals exceed the bill's 20% threshold.
Because of the potential for conflicts when government officials and funds are used to collect money to be used for political spending, Representative McCarthy offered an amendment stating that funds obtained by a union through a government-administered payroll deduction program may not be used for political expenditures. 2
[Footnote] The majority rejected this amendment on a party-line vote.
[Footnote 2: The United States Court of Appeals upheld a similar provision against a federal cons utional challenge in Toledo Area AFL-CIO Council v. Pizza, 154 F.3d 307 (6th Cir., 1998).]
The Committee's consideration of the bill showed a clear pattern. The underlying language bans speech by a specific class of organizations, corporations. When we sought to at least make the bans even-handed by applying them to unions, the majority rejected the efforts again and again. The majority's refusal to make the bill apply evenly to all speakers sets it on a collision course with the clear holding of the Supreme Court just four months ago: `We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.' 3
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-18-2010 at 09:52 PM.
Americans aren't en led to know who is supporting lobbyists whose job is to influence elections and capture the legislative process?The sponsors have not explained why this iden y is not enough information for voters, and must be supplemented by delving into the organizations' sources of funds
Why not, pray tell?
Secret slush funds buying campaigns, buying Congressman.
What is there to hide? Why does the NRA need to hide its money and beneficiaries?
America is ed.
Sure. That's a fairly serious political restriction(and a completely novel one, to my knowledge).In its first substantive section, the bill bans independent expenditures and electioneering communications (which we will call `political spending' or `political expenditures') by companies holding a government contract worth $50,000 or more (an amount revised to $7,000,000 in the Committee markup). The bill claims in its findings that this will prevent government officials from influencing the contracting process based on political spending, and will prevent contractors from feeling pressure to make political expenditures.
By removing the appearance of impropriety in a very blunt way, more than a few actual improprieties may be averted, but I never understood quite how that worked.
(Money always finds a way around the law. How could it not?)
You don't think we need a tighter reign on James Riady's and Johnny Huang's ability to spend in US elections, WC? Do tell.
You missed the point. Reporting is already a requirement. This is adding layers upon layers, making it harder and harder.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
