A funny thing happened on the way toward shining a light on big money's influence in political campaigns. Apparently, the 53 House Democrats who get money from the NRA decided to stand in the way. Not on principle. They've got no problem with disclosure rules for big corporations, small corporations, unions, or advocacy groups in general.
And it's not because H.R. 5175 has anything to do with the Second Amendment or regulations on gun ownership. It doesn't.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen's (D-Md.) proposal, which is strongly supported by the Obama Administration and known as the DISCLOSE (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) Act, seeks to strengthen campaign finance disclosure rules in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in January. There's not a single word about guns in the bill.
Among other things, the DISCLOSE Act requires that advocacy groups reveal the major sources of funding for their independent expenditures late in the campaigns of federal candidates for office.
But in response to complaints by the NRA bosses who don't want to tell the public where their money comes from, the 53 Democrats who receive money from the NRA apparently insisted the bill be changed. This led to a "compromise" that exempts groups with more than a million members; and that raised 15 percent or less funding from corporations; that have members in all 50 states; and that have been around at least 10 years.
Funny thing, only one advocacy group actually involved in political campaigns - and one group alone - meets the new criterion. The NRA.
After word of this ironic and outrageous "carve out" spread throughout Washington and across the country, more than a hundred groups, conservative and liberal, loudly registered their objections to Congress, Van Hollen, and the NRA.
But it's these 53 Democrats who should be the target, not only of the other groups that would have to abide by a different set of rules, but also, of the American people.
These 53 Democrats who refuse to stand up to a special interest on an issue that has nothing directly to do with guns or the Second Amendment are allowing NRA cash to decide what role money will play in our election campaigns.
This is not the first piece of sensible legislation that NRA-backed Democrats have thwarted or jeopardized because of their allegiance to the NRA and the money it pours into their campaigns. But before these Democrats get the idea that their behavior is acceptable, now is a good time for us to tell them that putting their cozy relationship with the NRA above the interests of the voters has got to stop.
Join us in demanding that if these Democrats vote for H.R. 5175 with an NRA exemption, they should return the cash and promise to not take any more NRA money indirectly in this or future elections.
The 53 Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives who have taken money from the NRA this year are:
Jason Altmire (PA);
Joe Baca (CA);
John Barrow (GA);
Marion Berry (AR);
Sanford Bishop (GA);
John Boccieri (OH);
Dan Boren (OK);
Leonard Boswell (IA);
Rick Boucher (VA);
Allen Boyd (FL);
Bobby Bright (AL);
Chris Carney (PA);
Ben Chandler (KY);
Jerry Costello (IL);
Henry Cuellar (TX);
Lincoln Davis (TN);
John Dingell (MI);
Joe Donnelly (IN);
Chet Edwards (TX);
Brad Ellsworth (IN);
Bart Gordon (TN);
Gene Green (TX);
Deborah Halvorson (IL);
Martin Heinrich (NM);
Brian Higgins (NY);
Baron Hill (IN);
Tim Holden (PA);
Steve Kagen (WI);
Paul Kanjorski (PA);
Larry Kissell (NC);
Frank Kratovil (MD);
Jim Marshall (GA);
Jim Matheson (UT);
Mike McIntyre (NC);
Mike Michaud (ME);
Alan Mollohan (WV);
Scott Murphy (NY);
Glenn Nye (VA);
David Obey (WI);
Tom Perriello (VA);
Collin Peterson (MN);
Earl Pomeroy (ND);
Nick Rahall (WV);
Mike Ross (AR);
Tim Ryan (OH);
John Salazar (CO);
Heath Shuler (NC);
Ike Skelton (MO);
Zachary Space (OH);
Bart Stupak (MI);
Gene Taylor (MS);
Timothy Walz (MN);
Charlie Wilson (OH).
Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter.
Loading comments… 
any way at all to substantia
"The NRA lobbyist also said few of their lobbyists are "true believers"
Then he can dismiss it when we talk to actual lobbyist and they give a different story than his piece of fiction.
"It is true that a 501(c)(3) organizati
Why does he keep Ignoring that statement which contradict
What bugs him is the fact the NRA works for the gun industry--
He keeps pretending a 501c3 can set up an affiliate 501c4 or c6 but he apparently believes that is done without money. He bases this fantasy on this sentence: "However, no resources or assets of the 501(c)(3) may be used to fund or support the affiliate; all funding and support must come from independen
But let's go to the cite, shall we?
The full context is: "9. 501(c)(3)s cannot set up affiliated organizati
Not true. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has said that 501(c)(3)s can establish affiliated 501(c)(4)s
"It is true that a 501(c)(3) organizati
With the passage in the House, 164 other Democrats also refused to stand up to a special interest. How many of them were endorsed by the Brady Campaign?
"It is true that a 501(c)(3) organizati
"However, no resources or assets of the 501(c)(3) may be used to fund or support the affiliate; all funding and support must come from independen
Yet he keeps claiming that his own source is fabricated
Oh Right.
Keep going Jade.
As I sagely noted, the NRA is actually several organizati
The NRA Foundation is a 501c3 organizati
From my cite:
Even the U.S. Supreme Court has said that 501(c)(3)s can establish affiliated 501(c)(4)s
"A 501(c)(3) and its lobbying affiliate may even share office space, office services, and staff - so long as the affiliate pays or reimburses the 501(c)(3) for all space, services and staff time it uses. "
TP demands we believe that a 501c3 cannot contribute in any way, shape, or form to a 501c4 ("In what world can a 501(c)(3) transfer or 'grant' money to a 501(c)(4) ? ")
Yet, the cite clearly states a 501c3 can establish a 501c4 for unlimited lobbying/p
How do they do that without money, TP? Wishing?
Your link Jade. Are you disputing your own source?
From Jade's link: "However, no resources or assets of the 501(c)(3) may be used to fund or support the affiliate; all funding and support must come from independen
Jade's original claim:
"all they'd have to do is claim the monies were for "education
From the link: "It is true that a 501(c)(3) organizati
Jade's claim:
"The NRA Foundation then is able to make 'grants' to the NRA, which is free to use for PACs and campaign donations without having to disclose where the funds came from. "
But he can't admit that the link he provided ironically showed the exact opposite of what he claimed
Jade's own link bears this out.
Wow.
TP claimed 501c3's were forbidden to lobby or engage in political campaigns.
I provided this reference that said that 501c3's were not only permitted to lobby and engage in campaigns-
"501(c)(3) organizati
"The federal government clearly supports lobbying by 501(c)(3) organizati
My cite also shows 501c3's can "state your position on legislatio
" A 501(c)(3) organizati
Even the U.S. Supreme Court has said that 501(c)(3)s can establish affiliated 501(c)(4)s
"A 501(c)(3) and its lobbying affiliate may even share office space, office services, and staff - so long as the affiliate pays or reimburses the 501(c)(3) for all space, services and staff time it uses. "
TP loses. Again.
You have some profound issues with tracking! Example: Your most recent exchange with "Thirdpowe
Old SF MJT
Note he refuses to quote the sections I did from his very own site that debunks his claims.
"It is true that a 501(c)(3) organizati
Jade's claim:
"Let's say the NRA is subject to the Disclose Act. When the NRA donates money to Rand Paul or some other teabagger, under the Disclose Act, they'd have to note contributo
Sorry Jade. You lose again.
I was talking to an NRA lobbyist last week and I asked him about the recent NRA soiree in NC. He rolled his eyes and said how much he and his colleagues hate going to these things. He said you feel like having to take a "hot shower with a wire brush."
I asked him about this and he said its like going to a UFO or Trekkie convention
So, I asked him the obvious question: why does he work for the NRA? The money is good and its a good item on your resume.
Why do you keep avoiding supporting your claim that the NRA is violating federal tax law?
Instead you keep changing the topic?
It's a legal loophole.
http://www
As for the NRA guy's name--what are you going to do with it? Get him fired?
He was very interestin
Jade's original claim:
"all they'd have to do is claim the monies were for "education
He debunks himself.
You are going to be absolutely speechless if, or should I say when, the McDonald case holds that the 2A is incorporat
-A report by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, November 6, 2008
#2 “President Obama’s First Year: Failed Leadership
-Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, January 2010.
#1 “The 2008 elections marked a major victory for common sense gun laws. Never in our nation’s history have we had an incoming President and Vice President more supportive of strong gun laws.”
#2 “President Obama’s first year record on gun violence has been an abject failure.”
#1 “After eight years of an Administra
#2 “In just one year, Barack Obama has signed into law more repeals of federal gun policies than President George W. Bush’s eight years in office.”
#1 “Barack Obama’s campaign also provided a model to politician
#2 “…the White House muzzled cabinet members who called for sensible gun laws.”
#1 “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is a national non-profit organizati
#2 “Mr. Holder, however, emphasized the Administra
Doesn't that just burn Pauls biscuits?