Conservatives Outraged At NRA Deal
Conservative movementarians, and some of the top GOPers on Capitol Hill, are furious with the National Rifle Association for cutting a deal with House Dem leaders that could speed passage of a measure aimed at increasing campaign finance disclosure requirements.
The NRA, which had concerns about provisions in the bill they believed might force them to report their membership rolls, struck a deal with Dem leaders over the weekend that will exempt them from much of the DISCLOSE Act's reporting requirements. That deal has conservative groups steamed.
"The new word from the NRA is, it's OK to deny free speech to Americans as long as the NRA gets a carve out," said Myron Ebell, director of Freedom Action, as he singled out NRA executive VP Wayne LaPierre for criticism. "Unfortunately, the only conclusion is that Mr. LaPierre is a hypocrite and the NRA is just another powerful special interest seeking special treatment."
The conservative Wall Street Journal accused the NRA of "a sudden onset of amnesia" in a scathing op-ed today. "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," the editors wrote.
Conservatives who oppose the reform measure say it is little more than a stunt aimed at bolstering Dem chances during the midterms -- as evidenced by its top sponsors, DCCC chairman Chris Van Hollen and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the immediate past DSCC chair. Conservatives see the bill as an unconstitutional limiting of free speech.
"I think they are treading on thin ice with members and staff alike. It isn't like the NRA to allow itself to be so blatantly manipulated by their traditional enemies," said a senior Senate GOP aide.
And, some GOPers argue, the NRA's deal wasn't a politically smart move in the first place. If the NRA had openly opposed the legislation, some gun-rights advocates in the Dem Caucus might have hesitated to vote for the bill -- especially with midterm elections right around the corner. Amid comparisons between the '10 elections and '94, Dems could be hesitant to anger a group many credit with helping the GOP win back a dozen or more seats that year.
But with the NRA refusing to oppose the legislation, that hurdle is removed, and the bill is more likely to pass. Without the deal, GOP legislative strategists said, there wouldn't have been a bill in the first place.
In truth, the GOP isn't likely to be able to punish the NRA any time soon. It remains one of the largest and most politically active organizations in the country, and no GOPer is going to switch positions on gun control over a campaign finance bill.
But the NRA's seat at the GOP table is in some jeopardy, largely on bills tangential to purely Second Amendment rights. The NRA has input on a number of other pieces of legislation, including everything from appropriations measures to health care legislation (Its involvement in the campaign finance debate is evidence of their broad portfolio). If GOPers want to punish the NRA for their apostasy, the gun lobby may find it has less pull in future legislative battles not intimately tied to gun rights issues.
Ironically, the carve-out has presented new challenges for Dems seeking the votes to pass the bill. Progressives are furious that the NRA has had so much influence over the legislation. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is canvassing House liberals to see if he can scrounge up the votes to renegotiate, while Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) is a firm no if the deal is still in. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) is also considering voting against the legislation.
The NRA's deal, angry GOPers said, effectively infuriated the right while simultaneously endangering the bill's left flank.
30 year member of the NRA... and mad as hell!!!
Called membership office today and expressed my fury over this deal...and demanded that the NRA-ILA OPPOSE this bill!
It seems the NRA has forgotten who its friends are..and who are its enemies..
I am very upset at the NRA caving to the cowardous, bullying, and rediculously spending Democrats. Caving to their agenda of limited free speech, in which they would be exempt is just another reason this country is going down by the wayside. I have supported the NRA in the past and have always valued their stance on our second amendment right to bear arms. I am very upset at the NRA's cowardness and the way they have stabbed the majority conservative America in the back. I will not ever support the NRA again unless they make a 180 degree turn and go back to the conservative values which "I believe" is in the best interest of the country to prosper and come out of this big hole that has gotten worse since Obama has taken office.
I WOULD ADVICE THE NRA TO BACK TRACK ON THIS ISSURE OR IT WILL DAMAGE THEIR CREDIBILTIY NOW AND IN THE FUTURE AND HURT THEM FINANCIALLY AS WELL.
This is hilarious! Pass the bill with no exemption for the NRA.
I'm with you, Kyle!
With the 2nd Amendment under attack constantly from too many fronts, too many to mention and we all know who they are, the NRA blew it by not standing up against yet another anti Constitution liberal bill. NRA needs to get their balls back and rescind their position. The 2nd and 1st Amendments apply to everyone. The liberals can kiss my sweet ass.
You caved as cowards typically do. You forgot to stand tall. Remember, "DO RIGHT" should be in play at ALL times and not ignored when it seems to feel good for you only.
Caved to the Dems? You guys are hilarious, the "carve out" benefits them in political advertising! The solution is simple, just remove the NRA carve-out and make them disclose their funding sources, like everyone else.
can one of you righters please explain how this bill "limits free speech"?
Could Stephen Markovich please explain, other than his own fetid imaginings, how the 2nd Amendment is under attack "constantly from too many fronts"? Rights under the 2nd amendment have been expanding during the Obama administration than any other - including the right of these whackjobs to carry concealed handguns in federal parks. In fact, can this moron name one (1)! actual "attack" on the 2nd amendment?
A bizarre sense of victimhood is a classic sign of the modern "conservative" - and I use that term loosely because these wingnuts have nothing to do with real conservatism.
What a bunch of ignorant crybabies.
Folks really need to not listen to teabaggers, because they are incoherent, inconsistent and stupid.
Anyone who owns stock in a corporation has a say in that corporation and thus has a right to political speech or free speech through that company on issues that effect that company. Too many libbies like gbaked seem to think that that companies have no right to free speech yet corrupt socialist unions do in their minds.
Why should labor unions be exempt from this legislation? Why should rich billionaires be allowed to set up their own 527's and spew whatever they want then? Why not limit them since they represent no one but their insane selves?
The founders never wanted speech to be infringed upon, no matter how shrill or absurd, whether private citizen or corporation. They risked all so that you have that right.
There are already laws before McStainFiendgold that limited the contributions of corporations. Private citizens have limits as well for campaign contributions. If it was really about undue influence from corporations, then lets not let unions have undue influence and the billionaires such as Soros, Eli Broad, Bloomberg, etc.
Stephen want a cracker?
Glad you have original thoughts and not talking points little guy.
whack jobs and concealed carry? Nice invective hyperbole there. No facts. No proof.
Teabaggers......very original. That one has run its course. Want a cracker or is Stephen gonna learn new tricks?
Labeling people as stupid, ignorant, incoherent with adhominen attacks because you have nothing else supporting you. Want a cracker?
yes I am baked, and no, I'm not very smart.
This is ludicrous. The NRA is a uni-directionally focused "civil rights" organization that was simply making sure that the agenda the NRA focuses on was not affected by gratuitous legislation. Once that was accomplished, they stopped their efforts by stating that they would neither support nor oppose the legislation as it now stands. Simple, end of story. Should the NRA spend limited resources and unlimited time to defend every other organization that is affected by this? NO! Let these other bleating organizations step up their own lobbying or better yet, increase their membership base and donations if they are so concerned with this issue. Better yet, vote out the idiots this coming November that sponsor such time wasting and debilitating legislation. Leave the NRA alone in this case. They are looking after the interests of their membership and even those gun owners that don't belong but should.
i dont understand why you are hijacking my moniker. I use it on every post I have ever made on the internet, and am confused by why you are using it. I feel like you are trying to insult me, but I dont get it...
I have no interest in right/left debate. I am simply asking this site why they feel that making the corporations show who they are is hindering free speech? I have been reading up on this since the Citizens United ruling, and cant understand why people would be against what congress is trying to do.
Why is it a bad thing to have a company that is willing to put immense amounts of money into a campaign be forced to say who they are and to hold them accountable. I actually dont have too much of a problem with corporations being allowed to donate, if they are forced to stand behind it. Letting a corporation, who has no interest in anything except a bottom line put money into our election process with no checks or balances is a scary thought. Allowing foreign businesses to influence our elections is a scary thought.
Im just confused about what in this bill is making you all scream that it is a hinder on free speech.
Corporations have access to funds that 99% of American citizens do not have. The Supreme Courts ruling gives them untold influence in our election process. Agree with that or Disagree, doesn't it make sense for us to know who is spending what? So we can see who our congressmen are influenced by?
It is the National Rifle Association, not the National Republican Association.
Myself along with my wife and daughter are life members of the NRA & Texas State Rifle Association. We are furious about this and I intend to contact both associations and voice our concerns. I think the high profile folks that give of their time and talent on NRA publications/meetings/national events need to stand against this and with a loud voice tell them to walk away from this immediately!
The real outrage is that this bill is to reverse a Supreme Court ruling while giving labor a free ride.
Anyone who believes in the Constitution and the
3 branches of government should throw this piece
of garbage in the trash.
gbaked2 -- "The founders never wanted speech to be infringed upon, no matter how shrill or absurd, whether private citizen or corporation.
...whether private citizen or corporation."
...whether private citizen or corporation."
Uhm...talk about truthiness. I think someone needs some remedial history lessons regarding the formation of corporations and what the founding fathers really thought of them.
Google can be your friend ["founding fathers" corporations]:
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/01/22/what-did-the-founding-fathers-really-think-about-corporations-and-their-rights/
I know, I know... It's probably some "left-leaning" site because as we all know, reality has a well-known liberal bias, just as the truth and facts often do.
Wow, amazing how little people on the internet know about the Constitution. Wait, no it isn't! Also, this is Hotline, so a much higher proportion of truly stupid people. Now it all makes sense.
those billionaire hedge fund managers that are paying what is it? 15% tax rate? I bet they get all the free speech they can buy.
Sometimes it feels like the teabaggers are Animal Farm all over - people with lots of money, why their free speech is more valuable.
I grew up on stories about John Henry, Paul Bunyan, people who labored and were honored for it. Those days are over, now its the billionaire hedge fund managers that are 'honored'.
I will no longer support the NRA. Giving up our rights, that's ridiculous.
You people all need to take (more than a few) deep breaths.
It is only now, in the year 2010--some 250 years into this country's existence--that ANYONE considers limitless spending on the part of corporations to be a matter of " free speech." How did this occur?
It occurred when 5 unelected "elites" took it upon themselves to decide an issue not even raised in the case before them--which this recent law graduate can assure you is the DEFINITION of judicial activism on a truly shocking scale--and overturn 100+ years of legislation, not to mention the will of the American people (who, polls consistently show, are overwhelmingly in favor of limiting the power of the very monied interests that have already crippled our "democracy") in order to completely redefine the meaning of "speech."
When limitless spending by corporate interests is inexplicably defined as speech, the voices of those of us without millions or billions to spend are weakened to the point of silence.
Corporations are not people, and money does not speak. The only type of speech corporations engage in is ADVERTISING, which is defined by manipulating opinion in order to maximize profit margins.
In a country that has been so obviously captured by wealthy corporate interests, why would anyone support giving them even more power with which to manipulate and distort the political process? In almost any other democracy on the planet, our entire system of "lobbying" would constitute nothing short of systemic, institutionalized bribery.
But rather than being outraged by 5 corporatists taking it upon themselves to override 100 years worth of legislation--legislation whose sole goal is to protect the integrity of our elections and government--strongly supported by the American people, you people are outraged that Congress is trying to do what little it can to minimize the impact of yet another "For Sale" sign placed on our "democracy" by the Supreme Court, Inc.
Where, pray tell, does our Constitution even mention the rights of corporations, or come close to suggesting that they are entitled to the same freedoms as the INDIVIDUALS it protects?
Corporations were certainly in existence at the time the Constitution was written, and yet our Founding Fathers felt no need whatsoever to make any provision for their protection.
In fact, many Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, shared with later American heroes--Abraham Lincoln, for instance--a great amount of suspicion of and disdain for corporations. They also shared the conviction that corporate power constitutes one of the most dire threats to democracy that this country would ever face.
***
"I HOPE WE SHALL CRUSH IN ITS BIRTH THE ARISTOCRACY OF OUR MONIED CORPORATIONS, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
[Thomas Jefferson]
"MERCHANTS HAVE NO COUNTRY. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
[Thomas Jefferson]
"THE SELFISH SPIRIT OF COMMERCE...FEELS NO PASSION OR PRINCIPLE BUT THAT OF GAIN."
[Thomas Jefferson to Larkin Smith, 1809]
"THEY MONEY POWERS PRAY UPON THE NATION in times of prosperity and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is MORE DESPOTIC THAN MONARCHY, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.
CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN ENTHRONED AND AN ERA OF CORRUPTION IN HIGH PLACES WILL FOLLOW, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people UNTIL THE WEALTH IS AGGREGATED IN THE HANDS OF THE FEW, AND THE REPUBLIC IS DESTROYED."
[Abraham Lincoln]
I think Republicans sometimes forget who they really are and what they mindlessly "support" all the time. The NRA doesn't give a damn about the Republican party, Republicans are just usefull idiots to them. It's the same thing with Big Oil, the Health Insurance Industry and Wall Street etc. Republican voters are nothing more than their usefull idiots who continuously fall for the Mega Corporations sloganeering and flag waving schtick every single time.
Thank you Fox News....
Guys, reread the article - "neither supports or opposes"... LaPierre has the Dems voting against it, excellent use of misdirection. If I had the time to rant, I could. Simply put: it fails to pass, no problem, passes: goes to court being unconstitutional...law would never see the light of day
I am only spoofing gbaked2, who is a moron. No issues with gbaked.
I asked for examples of the "assault" on the 2nd amendment, and that moron (gbaked2) cries about the lack of facts - while not offering a single example.
That's comedy gold, but standard stuff from the perpetual wingnut whiners.
I can not believe that the NRA has folded like a cheap tent before the anti-Constitutional legislation limiting free speech! This can only be looked upon as cowardice in the face of the enemy. I have always been proud to be an NRA member, but this act has only put the organization on a par with those despicable legislators who sold their health care vote for favorable treatment of their little agenda! If this action is not reversed, then the NRA "leadership" will fall into the same category as the, bought and paid for, liberal union thugs! Their action is not pragmatism, it's prostitution.
Tom...you idiot. The reason you're upset is because the NRA brokered a deal with Democrats not because of the special treatement that they're getting that allows them to dodge the regulations other groups are bound to follow!? It's not they hypocrisy Tom cares about folks it's the fact that the NRA got in the sandbox with the Democrats. When they hung up with you today when you called the NRA office they probably laughed at you...because you're stupid.
Hey Colon,
The democraps do not have a sandbox. It's a mudpile! The only time that a liberal would take the side of the NRA is when they show weakness, and deal with the dem/libs.
If the Rightists are against it, then it is probably good for America.
They are just like the AARP...will sell out their members. Opposition control folks, learn what it means and see who you are supporting that is controlling you.
NOTHING is as onerous as the activities of the AARP, Association Against Retiree's Prosperity, when they pursue the dems liberal agenda while claiming that they are defending us old farts! They are nothing more than an insurance company, disguised as an organization meant to assist the elderly. Just compare their Medigap policy costs versus any other reputable firm.
these people who act like democrats are against the constitution must have been in a coma for the past nine years. the repugs and bushco. shredded it and were and are still trying to change everything in it. how ignorant can people be. it's shocking. are they ignoring the facts or what. bushco passed leg. to get rid of miranda rights, to wiretap anyone without a warrant. to allow corporations to buy our elections, the list goes on and on and on. they illegally fired attorney generals who wouldn't falsely prosecute their political opponents,oh, i mean enemies, as bushy said, if you're not with us ,yer against us. those are the words of a dictator. and he and cheney and rove almost got away with it. watch you tube, talk - naomi wolf - the end of america, and you'll see that they were on step nine of the ten steps dictators use to close down an open society. those monsters should be thrown in jail for life !!!!
Stephen's brain:
Have you listened ANYTIME Billary has opened it's mouth to the U.N. ? Everytime that creature draws breath, the 2nd amendment is under attack.
Any of you would be foolish to withdraw your support from NRA over this issue. While I do not agree with their recent actions on DISCLOSE anymore than most of the rest of you, let us not forget that this is the most prominent lobby in the country, and therefore the most important ally we can have in the war to restore our second amendment rights. I have lobbying experience and much of my education is centered on lobbying, and I (and any good lobbyist) can tell you that political success often involves compromise until you can come back and get what you really want. NRA has mastered this concept, and has been very successful in using it to revive many of our lost rights. You cannot put the weight of the entire constitution on a single lobby as you have the NRA. You cannot expect other pro-gun lobbies with political biases towards republicans or conservatives to be able to appeal to politicians when the power lies with parties unsupported by those lobbies to begin with. To be successful for any cause in Washington or anywhere else, you HAVE to be nonpartisan, you have to pick your battles, and, most importantly, YOU HAVE TO BE OBJECTIVE. This is why other lobbies have not been as successful as the NRA in protecting our rights (with exception to CCRKBA and the 2nd Amendment Foundation). And need I remind you that we are in the middle of only the first term of the most anti-gun president in American history, allied with a gun hating Congress? Be mad if you need to be, and complain to NRA as you should if you disagree. But this is a horrible time to withdraw your support from our most important 2nd amendment ally. If you do so, you have picked the dumbest time in your life to be spiteful.
------------------------------------------------
P.S. Do recall, if you are an NRA member, this act of desperation was committed to protect your privacy and protect the gun lobby as much as possible from this liberal attack... even if the only organization they could save was their own.
As a life member (patron level), I am upset that the NRA took a bill which was destined to fail and gave it new life. The NRA gave aid and comfort to the Bluedog democrats who are about to be sanctioned for the past activities, notably the marxists healthcare package and the corrupted stimulus program. They were afraid of small businesses, hence the reason for this crap bill. You don't oppose the First Amendment to save the Second. Both are necessary and complimentary. I wouldn't have minded as much as if the full board was consulted. But they weren't and this was a Wayne's World lobbying attempt. Wonder what he got besides the exemption?