1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!
  2. We're giving away over $1,000 in prizes this month in the Northwest Firearms Winter Giveaway!
    Dismiss Notice

Statement from the national rifle association on h.r. 5175, the disclose act

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Chee-to, Jun 15, 2010.

  1. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Yup, it's all about money, nothing to do with gun owners and free speech. The NRA having worked out a deal to exempt themselves, plan no opposition to this bill. Small pro-gun organizations like OFF and GOA will be silenced. Now go ahead and attack the NRA, It's all BS, it's all BS, the liberal battle cry.



    Tuesday, June 15, 2010

    The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.

    In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.

    The NRA’s opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.

    The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

    The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.

    Thus, the NRA’s first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America’s lawful gun owners.

    On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 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.

    The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.

    The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.

  2. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    It's not just the NRA that is exempted from those rules, it is any other group that has been incorporated for over 10 years with over 1 million members. That includes groups on both side of the fence.

    NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
    WAC member
    SWWAC member
  3. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    No problem, just confirming that H.R. 5175 is about the second amendment and free speech, not what has been parroted over and over by the libs here that it's all BS. Are you OK with with the fact that it silences all pro 2nd amendment groups with less than a million members ?
    "the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American." If this really is their stance why not oppose the bill ? I'm a member in good standing with the NRA, have been for years, and I have the right to ask that question. As a "NRA Benefactor/Recruiter," maybe you can tell me ?
  4. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Hi Chee-to,
    Even as a life member I criticized them today to their board, but asked for a better explanation. I still support them 100% but also ram them when it needs to happen.
    I think they did what was necessary, but not exactly what made them happy. They are still the main organization that fights for 2nd Amendment rights, and also the one that has done the most for us in this country. I did tell them that regardless of the organization ALL 2nd amendment groups need to hold together. All of us as life members also have voting power there also, but there is always a shortage of great choices. I believe they did what was in the best interests of everyone in the organization. Some of these things may pass now but after November if we all do our part will just get burned back to square one. These Social Communist, Marxists (alias = democrats) know their days are numbered.
  5. PhysicsGuy

    PhysicsGuy Corvallis, OR Resident Science Nut

    Likes Received:
    I'm not trying to start a political debate here;

    I don't know how many people actually read bill texts for these things, but as far as it looks, this bill has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Its centered around restructuring FECA so that large corporations and organizations have less control over political campaign contributions.

    It's helpful to do research before listing to propaganda (from any side);
  6. Karma

    Karma the woods in Oregon Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Are unions addressed in that bill? If not, it is about freedom of speech. You can't pick and choose who can support their political cause. Either we let ALL corperations have a say, or we let NONE have a say. That includes Obama's friends at the UNIONS. Nothing else is fair.
  7. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    By giving the FEC jurisdiction over political speech, bloggers would be required to fill out massive forms and face civil and even criminal penalties for violations. Interestingly enough, the establishment media is exempted from these regulations."

    Eight former commissioners of the Federal Election Commision believe D.I.S.C.L.O.S.E. adds a complicated scheme of arduous and vague rules - with no hope for clarification through the rulemaking process - designed to confuse and intimidate grassroots groups while midterm campaigns are underway. For example,

    The bill creates new disclosure requirements for advocacy groups that speak out.
    They must provide the government with a membership list, which infringes on the First
    Amendment rights of private associations recognized by the Supreme Court in NAACP v.

    The bill requires any organization making political expenditures to create and maintain an
    extensive, highly sophisticated website with advanced search features to track its political
    activities. Grassroots organizations maintain only basic websites.

    This bill would discourage GRASSROOTS organizations from making any expenditures for
    political advocacy, because doing so would require them to spend thousands of dollars to
    upgrade their websites and purchase software to report information to the FEC.

    The bill includes an exemption for major media corporations; it does not exempt
    websites or the Internet, which means the government can regulate (and potentially
    censor) political dialogue on the Web.

    Per a former FEC commissioner, "These regulatory burdens fall hardest not on large-scale players in the political world but on grass-roots movements, low-budget campaigns, and *unwitting volunteers.

    While the bill prohibits any corporation with a federal contract of $50,000 or more from making independent expenditures or electioneering communications, no such prohibition applies to unions. This $50,000 trigger is so low it would exclude thousands of corporations from engaging in constitutionally protected political speech, the very core of the First Amendment. Yet public employee unions negotiate directly with the government for benefits many times the value of contracts that would trigger the corporate ban.

    In fact, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees plans to spend
    over $50 million during the 2010 campaign, part of which will fund “a massive
    incumbent protection program.” Is it any surprise that the incumbent sponsors of this bill
    want to exempt unions from many of its provisions?

    The bill also bans expenditures on political advocacy by American corporations with 20% or more foreign ownership, but there is no such ban on unions—such as the Service Employees International Union, or the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers—that have large numbers of foreign members and foreign nationals as directors.
  8. PhysicsGuy

    PhysicsGuy Corvallis, OR Resident Science Nut

    Likes Received:
    I'm still confused on what this has anything to do with freedom of speech. All this bill does is regulate campaign contributions, and requires groups to disclose with their members where their contributions are going.

    I guess the summary link I posted earlier doesn't work, here is the bill summary. If you'd like to point out where there are violations in freedom of speech, go ahead;

  9. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    If you don't believe my above post, to be honest I couldn't tell you, that's why lawyers and constitutional researchers are hired by both sides to see what it really means. Everybody has a interpretation depending on their political persuasion on what a law will or will not do. Case in point the 2nd amendment, not nearly as convoluted and full of legalize as this bill is, how long did it take to decide if the "right to bare arms" was a individual right ? Even though it has been decided by the supreme court by 5 to 4 decision
    there are those who still disagree (Chicago).........Sorry I couldn't be more help..
  10. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    In the whole bill not the summary
    11 Subtitle A—Treatment of Inde12
    pendent Expenditures and Elec13
    tioneering Communications
    14 Made by All Persons <<<NOTE
    16 (a) REVISION OF DEFINITION.&#8212;Subparagraph (A) of
    17 section 301(17) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
    18 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(17)) is amended to read as follows:
    19 &#8216;&#8216;(A) that, when taken as a whole, expressly
    20 advocates the election or defeat of a clearly iden21
    tified candidate, or is the functional equivalent
    22 of express advocacy because it can be interpreted
    23 by a reasonable person only as advocating the
    24 election or defeat of a candidate, taking into ac25
    count whether the communication involved men-
    VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:38 May 25, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6203 E:\BILLS\H5175.RH H5175 hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS28
    &#8226;HR 5175 RH
    1 tions a candidacy, a political party, or a chal2
    lenger to a candidate, or takes a position on a
    3 candidate&#8217;s character, qualifications, or fitness
    4 for office; and&#8217;&#8217;.

    Note the " AND" making them seperate demands, no funds mentioned in the first part.

    7 $10,000 AT ANY TIME.&#8212;Section 304(g) of such Act (2
    8 U.S.C. 434(g)) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and
    9 (2) and inserting the following:
    11 THRESHOLD AMOUNT.&#8212;
    12 &#8216;&#8216;(A) INITIAL REPORT.&#8212;A person (including
    13 a political committee) that makes or contracts to
    14 make independent expenditures in an aggregate
    15 amount equal to or greater than the threshold
    16 amount described in paragraph (2) shall elec17
    tronically file a report describing the expendi18
    tures within 24 hours.
    19 &#8216;&#8216;(B) ADDITIONAL REPORTS.&#8212;After a per20
    son files a report under subparagraph (A), the
    21 person shall electronically file an additional re22
    port within 24 hours after each time the person
    23 makes or contracts to make independent expendi24
    tures in an aggregate amount equal to or greater
    25 than the threshold amount with respect to the
    VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:38 May 25, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6203 E:\BILLS\H5175.RH H5175 hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS

    Then this can be construed to apply to all internet communications unless nothing is paid for the service a person has to use the internet. ie; you

    4 &#8216;&#8216;(7) APPLICABLE INDIVIDUAL DEFINED.&#8212;In this
    5 subsection, the term &#8216;applicable individual&#8217; means,
    6 with respect to a communication to which this para7
    graph applies&#8212;
    8 &#8216;&#8216;(A) if the communication is paid for by an
    9 individual or if the significant funder of the
    10 communication under paragraph (4) is an indi11
    vidual, the individual involved;

    There is nothing but double speak throughout the entire bill which can be used to go after anyone making a political endorsement or oppose a candidate at will.
    It is a convoluted upside down bill and it does go against the 1st amendment from beginning to end.
  11. Minisocks

    Minisocks Portland Member

    Likes Received:
    Money = speech.

    And the argument is that if someone has to own up to (disclose contributions) their speech (money) then they won't do it because now those cash contributions can't hide behind patriotic sounding PACs.

    The argument is pretty flimsy.
  12. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Just confront your reps and senators head on and speak as an individual. There is not need to hide behind anything,,,,, YET. Support organization that speak in your inteests and also do your own speaking.
    No American Citizen should ever be afraid to say what they need to. If and when you are afraid to say what you think, you are no longer free.
  13. Gunner3456

    Gunner3456 Salem Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Large outfits are always in favor of burdensome laws. They have the resources to comply, but small outfits don't. For instance, all of the employment laws and taxes are a huge burden to a small business. Just understanding them is almost impossible. However a big company will have an HR department staffed with experts and will have no problem complying.

    Take just the family leave act. How does a small business replace a key employee for months? It's easy for a big outfit to have people already in place who can pick up the slack.

    The result is that when it gets to be too much, the small business folds. 80% of our jobs are created by small business so this is no laughing matter.

    Now, when the large outfits which have been in place for at least ten years get an exemption (through power of membership and money for lobbying) this leaves the small outfits to struggle to comply. They may fold when there gets to be too many laws to learn and to comply with.

    Yes this is an attack on free speech because of the requirements of compliance to do the speaking.

    Note that the NRA is right there to protect their rights, but not the rights of others including the small pro-gun organizations. Does it take a genius to figure out why?
  14. PMKN_PI

    PMKN_PI Milwaukie, Oregon, United States Active Member

    Likes Received:
    If there has been any better reason previously to pick up a gun against tyranny in our midst, ive never seen it. Whats it going to take?
  15. Gunner3456

    Gunner3456 Salem Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Please don't talk like that here. I'll have to quit the forum and I'll bet others will too. I don't want any part of it.

    The answer is at the polls. :)
  16. Doubletap

    Doubletap Newberg Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    "the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind."—Cleta Mitchell, NRA Board member
  17. Sodbuster

    Sodbuster Beaverton, OR Chief Cook/Bottle Washer

    Likes Received:
  18. Gunner3456

    Gunner3456 Salem Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Good link, thanks. That should answer anyone's questions about whether this is truly about free speech of even NRA members, and whether we were sold out by the NRA.
  19. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    It appears, that for the moment anyway, Nancy and friends don't have the political clout they thought they did. The vote, previously scheduled for today, has been cancelled.
    The two primary reasons listed, are that conservative Dems refused to support it based on opposition by the Chamber of Commerce and other small business orgs. The Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP and other progressive groups opposed it based on the NRA's exemption!

    Of course, given the history of this Congress, watch for a middle-of-the-night vote to circumvent the public's ability to sort out who's the devil in the details.
    I thought it was telling who was opposed based on the NRA's exemption.