NRA Trades First Amendment Rights for Second Amendment Rights
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: NRA Trades First Amendment Rights for Second Amendment Rights

  1. #1

    Exclamation NRA Trades First Amendment Rights for Second Amendment Rights

    NRA Trades First Amendment Rights for Second Amendment Rights
    Here is another article on this story.


    NRA Trades First Amendment Rights for Second Amendment Rights | Print | E-mail
    Written by Raven Clabough
    Thursday, 17 June 2010 11:00

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) has confirmed that they willingly cut a deal with Congress at the expense of free speech. The compromise is simple: We will not stand in the way of the proposed Disclose Act, believed to infringe upon First Amendment rights, if you do not infringe on our Second Amendment rights.

    What's worse is that the NRA will be exempt from the rules outlined in the Disclose Act.

    Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and House Representative Chris Van Hollen proposed a campaign finance bill, called the Disclose Act, in response to the January Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld that corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations are permitted to make campaign contributions under the First Amendment, ultimately relaxing the rules of campaign finance. The 5-4 decision was controversial, as it rejected restrictions on political communications and funding resources. Democrats fear that the Supreme Court decision would allow for a greater influx of corporation contributions to campaigns, which they believe will aid in Republican victories.

    According to the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE), the Disclose Act will do the following:

    The bill is expected to enhance disclaimers in political ads to require corporations, unions or trade associations to stand by any political ads they finance. A summary of the bill requires the top five contributors to an organization also be listed on the screen. It also requires organizations to disclose donors. The bill gives organizations two options: either disclose all donors of $1000 or above to its general fund, or set up a separate "campaign-related activity" account and disclose only those political donors of $1000 or above. If, however, the organization transfers $10,000 or more from the general fund to the political account, it must then disclose all general fund donors in excess of $10,000. Other provisions in the bill are expected to curb foreign influence in elections, mandate disclosures of political spending to shareholders and members, and prevent government contractors and recipients of government bailout funds from spending money on elections.

    Yahoo News explains that the Disclose Act proposal will "bulk up disclosure, political coordination and disclaimer requirements, and impose new limits on political involvement by government contractors and foreign governments."

    Politico states that the Democrats have defended exempting the NRA from the Disclose Act by asserting that the NRA "has a long history of being involved in the political process, and they say the real goal of the new campaign finance bill is to expose corporations and unions that create ambiguous front groups to run attack ads during campaigns." Allegedly, unions are not permitted to use the same exemption rules.

    The proposal for the NRA to be exempted from the act was introduced by conservative pro-gun Democrat Heath Schuler. The exemption is for 10-year-old or older organizations that have more than one million members in all 50 states and that raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. The language of this exemption can only favor the NRA and no other group, and is sure to anger smaller organizations.

    The NRA's opposition to the bill proved to be a hindrance in its passage. Now, the NRA has pledged to uphold its end of the bargain.

    Unfortunately for the Democratic lawmakers, the Disclose Act continues to face opposition from groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Right to Life Committee, and even liberal groups like the AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club, who insist that a few changes need to be made before they provide their support.

    The business lobby has also pledged to lobby against the Disclose Act, and has implied that Democrats who vote in favor of the bill will determine how the group uses its campaign sources.

    National Right to Life Commission's legislative director Douglas Johnson has asserted that the group's opposition to this bill will take precedence over their opposition to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

    Likewise, the Disclose Act faces confrontations with the American Society of Association Executives, whose president John Graham has outlined several areas of the bill that is believed to violate First Amendment rights.

    The Chamber of Commerce, alongside 100 trade associations addressed lawmkers in a May 27 letter asserting, "This legislation is a threat to the First Amendment rights of businesses across the country. It represents a significant departure from past campaign-finance legislation, which sought to treat unions and corporations comparably and was framed in a genuinely bipartisan manner."

    According to the Wall Street Journal, "Cutting a special deal at the expense of the First Amendment with lawmakers who have decided for now to stop gutting the Second Amendment reveals an NRA that is unprincipled and will be weaker for it in the long run."
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. #2
    mojo Guest
    Just when we need them to actually show they have a pair they cave. This is shamefull!!!!!!!
    This brings into question whether or not I will re-new. We'll see after I fire off a few emails, make some phone calls and get a real answer.
    Maybe they're thinking we can give up a little of the 1st, and protect what we have left with the 2nd because we protected that??

  4. #3
    I dont believe this tells the whole story....

    I am a NRA Life member as well as a member of their ILA & I received several letters about this issue. I cant quote verbatim as I am at work & those letters are at home but as I recall it the NRA's position was they would not stand in the way of this legislation so long as the NRA was exempted from its pervue. Basically the bill wont pertain to the NRA.
    While in principle I do not agree with that position in a pragmatic sense I do. The NRA exists to preserve the 2nd amendment not the 1st.
    It used to be the libs that were pro 1st amendment. I guess I am showing my age but I recall when the libs used to say "I dont agree with what you are saying but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". Look how far the libs "have come"...

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomer View Post
    I dont believe this tells the whole story....

    I am a NRA Life member as well as a member of their ILA & I received several letters about this issue. I cant quote verbatim as I am at work & those letters are at home but as I recall it the NRA's position was they would not stand in the way of this legislation so long as the NRA was exempted from its pervue. Basically the bill wont pertain to the NRA.
    While in principle I do not agree with that position in a pragmatic sense I do. The NRA exists to preserve the 2nd amendment not the 1st.
    It used to be the libs that were pro 1st amendment. I guess I am showing my age but I recall when the libs used to say "I dont agree with what you are saying but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". Look how far the libs "have come"...
    I fail to understand what part of "SINGLE ISSUE ORGANIZATION" the NRA bashers do not understand.

    The move is smarter than some give them credit for.

    This will galvanize other groups to oppose this law even more.

    When all is said and done, I suspect the law will not pass.

    -Doc

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Bighouse Doc View Post
    I fail to understand what part of "SINGLE ISSUE ORGANIZATION" the NRA bashers do not understand.

    The move is smarter than some give them credit for.

    This will galvanize other groups to oppose this law even more.

    When all is said and done, I suspect the law will not pass.

    -Doc
    I get the "single issue" argument. But what we have here is "I got mine, screw you". It's not a single issue that they are protecting, it's a single organization.

    I do agree that it will probably not pass, based on this exemption alone.
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    desha, arkansas
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    NRA Trades First Amendment Rights for Second Amendment Rights
    Here is another article on this story.


    NRA Trades First Amendment Rights for Second Amendment Rights | Print | E-mail
    Written by Raven Clabough
    Thursday, 17 June 2010 11:00

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) has confirmed that they willingly cut a deal with Congress at the expense of free speech. The compromise is simple: We will not stand in the way of the proposed Disclose Act, believed to infringe upon First Amendment rights, if you do not infringe on our Second Amendment rights.

    What's worse is that the NRA will be exempt from the rules outlined in the Disclose Act.

    Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and House Representative Chris Van Hollen proposed a campaign finance bill, called the Disclose Act, in response to the January Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld that corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations are permitted to make campaign contributions under the First Amendment, ultimately relaxing the rules of campaign finance. The 5-4 decision was controversial, as it rejected restrictions on political communications and funding resources. Democrats fear that the Supreme Court decision would allow for a greater influx of corporation contributions to campaigns, which they believe will aid in Republican victories.

    According to the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE), the Disclose Act will do the following:

    The bill is expected to enhance disclaimers in political ads to require corporations, unions or trade associations to stand by any political ads they finance. A summary of the bill requires the top five contributors to an organization also be listed on the screen. It also requires organizations to disclose donors. The bill gives organizations two options: either disclose all donors of $1000 or above to its general fund, or set up a separate "campaign-related activity" account and disclose only those political donors of $1000 or above. If, however, the organization transfers $10,000 or more from the general fund to the political account, it must then disclose all general fund donors in excess of $10,000. Other provisions in the bill are expected to curb foreign influence in elections, mandate disclosures of political spending to shareholders and members, and prevent government contractors and recipients of government bailout funds from spending money on elections.

    Yahoo News explains that the Disclose Act proposal will "bulk up disclosure, political coordination and disclaimer requirements, and impose new limits on political involvement by government contractors and foreign governments."

    Politico states that the Democrats have defended exempting the NRA from the Disclose Act by asserting that the NRA "has a long history of being involved in the political process, and they say the real goal of the new campaign finance bill is to expose corporations and unions that create ambiguous front groups to run attack ads during campaigns." Allegedly, unions are not permitted to use the same exemption rules.

    The proposal for the NRA to be exempted from the act was introduced by conservative pro-gun Democrat Heath Schuler. The exemption is for 10-year-old or older organizations that have more than one million members in all 50 states and that raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. The language of this exemption can only favor the NRA and no other group, and is sure to anger smaller organizations.

    The NRA's opposition to the bill proved to be a hindrance in its passage. Now, the NRA has pledged to uphold its end of the bargain.

    Unfortunately for the Democratic lawmakers, the Disclose Act continues to face opposition from groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Right to Life Committee, and even liberal groups like the AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club, who insist that a few changes need to be made before they provide their support.

    The business lobby has also pledged to lobby against the Disclose Act, and has implied that Democrats who vote in favor of the bill will determine how the group uses its campaign sources.

    National Right to Life Commission's legislative director Douglas Johnson has asserted that the group's opposition to this bill will take precedence over their opposition to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

    Likewise, the Disclose Act faces confrontations with the American Society of Association Executives, whose president John Graham has outlined several areas of the bill that is believed to violate First Amendment rights.

    The Chamber of Commerce, alongside 100 trade associations addressed lawmkers in a May 27 letter asserting, "This legislation is a threat to the First Amendment rights of businesses across the country. It represents a significant departure from past campaign-finance legislation, which sought to treat unions and corporations comparably and was framed in a genuinely bipartisan manner."

    According to the Wall Street Journal, "Cutting a special deal at the expense of the First Amendment with lawmakers who have decided for now to stop gutting the Second Amendment reveals an NRA that is unprincipled and will be weaker for it in the long run."
    i would ask that you go to http://www.nraila org/MEDIA/PDFs DISCLOSE ACT 52710.pdt

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Idaho
    Posts
    265
    Lots of good stuff here to ponder and banter about.... I also cringe at this move by the NRA..I am an NRA member and have been for many years. This may be a strategic move, and maybe they did this knowing it would polarize others and cause the bill to not pass. However, I do have a problem with supporting one right and sacrificing another..it's a slippery slope that groups like the ACLU and others have been sliding down for years.

    I only hope that the NRA did this as a strategic move, and did not really cave in on the 1st just to save some of the 2nd, because thats a strategy that can't be maintained long-term.

    I will be waiting with much anticipation to hear more info on this one...

  9. #8
    Am I my brothers keeper???

    Why must the NRA stand alone (or nearly so) against this piece of legislation? Where are the other alphabet organizations that proport to stand up for the individuals rights? I will tell you where, not to be found! Why? because this isnt about guns, or free speech. This is about votes!

    Personally I am glad the NRA is not wasting my money fighting this legislation et al. Why because the libs really dont want it either. See they know that there is a good chanxce they wont be around come January & this legislation will also stand in their way come 2012.
    This is nothing more than a bit of theater played out for those who cant keep their eye on the ball.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    They have made a deal with the devil just like the drug companies and doctors did with obama care.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  11. #10
    wolfhunter Guest
    The NRA surrendered part of our 2A rights in 1968, why shouldn't they collaborate on a restriction of any of our other rights?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 05:02 PM
  2. Stimulus Won't Infringe on Second Amendment Rights, Says NRA
    By Templar in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-14-2009, 03:15 PM
  3. Why we have no "constitutional" rights.
    By HK4U in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-23-2008, 06:20 PM
  4. POLITICALLY CORRECTED Glossary of Terms
    By Red Hat in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-09-2008, 08:20 PM
  5. Supreme Court hearing on 2nd Amendment
    By sheep dog in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-28-2008, 02:19 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast