Most news reports on the National Rifle Association's carve-out from the DISCLOSE Act (in exchange for dropping its opposition to the campaign-finance reform bill) have offered the group's excision as proof of its political might. But to many in the greater pro-gun and conservative world, it's being interpreted as something quite different: an act of betrayal. What the controversy does reveal is that the NRA's political power--as measured by its ability to control its grassroots "warriors" as NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre likes to call them -- is neither as monolithic nor as seamless as the organization would like its political opponents to believe.
The DISCLOSE Act, intended to tighten campaign finance restrictions devastated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision last January, would impose new transparency criteria for corporations airing electoral ads during the campaign season. What's fueling the anger toward the NRA is the belief that the group is willing to let other conservative voices be "silenced" under the law -- as long as the voice isn't theirs. An alert issued by Gun Owners of America (GOA) this week is fairly representative of many pro-gunners' view of the NRA's deal with the Democrats (aka "the devil") on the bill.
Citing a quote from LaPierre in the wake of the Citizens United ruling that, "This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us," the alert charges, "That's a far cry from the NRA statement to Congress this week regarding legislation specifically designed to undo that Supreme Court decision." In the alert, GOA cites the NRA statement removing itself from the DISCLOSE debate:
On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 [DISCLOSE Act] would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech.
As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.
GOA then notes, "Apparently it's ok to 'carve out' a little free speech if you're in the role of the 'elitists.' But the misguided NRA exemption will leave millions and millions of gun owners and sportsmen belonging to dozens of different organizations out in the cold."
The view that the NRA has abandoned the other Animal Farm residents in the barnyard as it leaves to learn how to walk on two feet isn't held just by fellow pro-gun groups. From blogs to talk radio, LaPierre and the NRA are being called to task for their actions.
Facing the accusation from conservative radio talk show host and NRA Life Member Lars Larson that the NRA had thrown the First Amendment free speech rights of other groups "under the bus" by agreeing not to oppose the bill, LaPierre insisted to Larson on June 16th that no deal had been cut, stating that "we didn't cut a deal -- they cut us out."
Yet contrary to LaPierre's denials, according to news reports, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox met with the DISCLOSE bill's House sponsor, Representive Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), at least twice, once accompanied by Representative Heath Shuler (D-NC) and once with Representative John Dingell (D-MI), two leading gun control opponents.
The NRA was the subject of similar criticism from Mark Levin, another popular conservative talk radio personality, who said on his June 17th show that the NRA's exemption would leave the Tea Party out in the cold and that the "leadership of the NRA has done something incredibly disgraceful." He went on to say "this is a very, very sad day for the NRA," and ended with "shame on you, shame on you."
In the blogosphere, the NRA has also found conservative critics. While RedState portrays the NRA as a "weak little girl of an organization protecting itself while throwing everyone else under the bus," others, like National Review Online, merely conclude in less colorful language that "...the NRA has apparently sold out."
And if web comments are to be believed, things aren't much better at NRA headquarters in Virginia. Under the subject line "NRA Shoots Gun Owners in the Back," commenter "Jakeiscrazy" writes, " I'm on hold now now with the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division. They must be getting a lot of calls, I've been on hold for a while."
The NRA's political might on Capitol Hill rests primarily on its ability to maintain the impression that it exerts absolute control over its gunbot grassroots "warriors." If a belief begins to take hold among its supporters that the organization is willing to side with the very "elites" it claims to detest, that control may begin to slip.
Follow Josh Sugarmann on Twitter: www.twitter.com/VPCinfo
NRA Under Fire for Campaign-Finance Move
Pelosi yanks campaign finance bill
Perriello: Don't tread on the NRA
Wonkbook: Jobs bill fails; BP puts up $20 bill; Legislators own millions in ...
GOOD READ: Special Interests Bill Can't Avoid Special Interests
DISCLOSE Act Violates Free Speech Rights
This bill EMPOWERS large institutions, the likes of which include the NRA and UAW. This legislation ensures that a large many of small and organized groups like, say, move on, campaign for liberty, firedoglake, redstate, and others will not be able to air many ads that are contradictory of the establishment messages that we are already bombarded with day in and day out because they have to raise MORE funds to afford an extra 15 seconds of REGULATORY NONSENSE. Does anybody understand that the majority of regulation we see keeps the people confined and the corporations in control?!
As John Bresnahan reports, "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... The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources."
So many here rail incessantly on large organizations and governments coziness to big business (yet, ironically, not really about Wall St, cuz it's, you know, your guy) and yet soil themselves out of jubilation when they hear regulation. My Question? Should any organization or administration wield the political power to silence opposition groups through regulatory means?
During the run-up to the health care bill I started getting emails from GOA -- just about daily -- blabbing on and on about "the anti-gun Obamacare bill." On review, the bill was "anti-gun" because it allowed for mental treatment records to be reported to NICS. I thought, "uh, gee, this doesn't really sound 'anti-gun' to me." It was pretty *darn* obvious that GOA had for whatever reason decided/agreed to lend its opposition to the health care plan.
So in a sense I was happy to see the NRA making all these statements about being a single-issue group.
Look, the NRA isn't about the 1A or 2A--they're about the NRA. They will do or say anything that protects Chairman Wayne and the leadership getting big paychecks. They basically gave the GOA and all the other assorted gunloon groups the old "I got mine."
And this behavior really shouldn't surprise anyone--except for the gunbots. After all, the NRA claimed for over two decades that they were fighting for the 2A. Yet, they never once fought any gun law or court case on the basis of its 2A Constitutionality. And the NRA didn't want to pursue Heller; it was the kooky Cato Institute that did all the heavy lifting.
I am curious about ramifications within the NRA itself. The NRA-ILA website has a bunch of press releases defending the deal. According to the statement prepared by/for Chris Cox:
"The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together."
Is the NRA really a single-issue organization?
Look, the NRA is about the NRA and making sure the gravy train keeps rolling.
It's really hilarious--the NRA is on record as being opposed to the Disclosure Act. Right up until they were excluded from it.
I am curious; for what reason do you continue to make such demonstrably false claims?
Are you under the mistaken impression that relying upon fictional assertions as a means of supporting your position is a valid form of argumentation, or is your position devoid of merit that you are unable to support it through actual factual statements? Or, if I may speculate, do you perhaps feel a psychological compulsion to repeatedly issue statements that are incongruent with reality?
I may be wrong, but I thought the 1A actually protected every individual against restrictions on political speech. The NRA is a group of individuals united in a particular cause, just as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center.
I do not object to this "carve out" of the NRA, I object to the fact that the 1A rights of other groups are being violated. This has nothing to do with 2A, of which I am definitely in the pro camp. This is the 1A, of which I am in the pro camp as well.
Why are their any "onerous restrictions on political speech." at all?
The bill is online and you can read it for yourself. It does not require the names of all members of a group donating money. It does require the top 4 donors (individuals or groups) to identify themselves. It also forbids corporations that are foreign-owned or -controlled from donating.
Its hilarious to see you quote the GOA in your criticisms of the NRA. The GOA so radically pro-gun they make the NRA look like moderate little weenies when it comes to gun control issues.
I often wonder what goes through your mind nowadays, Josh. I mean, the stunts you pulled in the '90's galvanized the gun-rights movement like nothing before. Your lies and deception cost the cause you claim to support dearly. Remember this little diddy?
"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.
Your so called "assault weapons" are now the most popular center fire rifles in the United States, thanks to your little tricks. A fractured gun lobby rallied in the 1990's thanks to you and the other three hacks at the VPC, and now pro-gun forces dominate nationwide, from state legislatures to the US congress, and now even the Supreme Court.
Sleep well tonight, Josh. The pro-gun movement and the NRA in particular have never been as powerful as they are now -- all thanks to you