The NRA's Political Sellout ....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313030277318678.html?mod=djemITP_h
C/P:
quote:The National Rifle Association slipped into a Beltway backroom this week to cut a deal with Democrats on their new campaign-finance legislation. Conservatives are ripping the gun-rights group for selling out free speech, and fair enough. But don't underestimate the political sellout. The NRA has potentially armed unions and Democrats for the midterm elections.
To understand the bigger game behind the DISCLOSE Act-which the House may vote on today-look no further than its two authors: New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen. What has brought these two men together in a sudden and fervent (and previously unexpressed) passion to now lead the campaign-finance wars?
Mr. Van Hollen currently heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Mr. Schumer, until recently, headed the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and remains a member of his party's leadership. Put another way, Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Schumer exist to protect incumbents and elect more Democrats.
Why is the gun rights lobby helping Chuck Schumer (left) help unions?
Ever since the Supreme Court issued its January Citizens United decision restoring some political-speech rights to corporations and other associations, the duo have been wailing that corporations will be free to rule elections. The "winner" of this year's midterms won't be Republicans or Democrats, cried Mr. Schumer, but "Corporate America." Even President Obama weighed in, decrying the victory for "big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies . . .
What you have not heard Democrats mention is that Citizens United didn't play favorites. Corporations got new speech rights. But so too did powerful unions and liberal activist groups. Mr. Schumer and Mr. Van Hollen don't mind that part of Citizens United. Quite the opposite, they love it. The question was how to retain these new freedoms for the unions who protect and elect Democrats while denying them to corporations that might support Republicans.
America, meet the DISCLOSE act.
The bill restricts corporate political participation for companies that contract with the government or have some foreign ownership. But its real aim is to use "transparency" as a weapon. CEOs would have to appear in ads to "approve" messages. Business groups like the Chamber of Commerce would have to "out" donors who give money that might be used in political activity.
Mr. Schumer isn't arguing the new corporate rights under Citizen United; he's been forthright that his goal is rather to embarrass companies out of exercising those rights. The bill will make companies "think twice," he rejoiced. "The deterrent effect should not be underestimated." Democratic incumbents won't underestimate it.
And the unions? Carved out.
The bill technically requires both corporations and unions to report donors of more than $600 a year. But that number wasn't pulled out of a hat. The average dues of the nation's 15 largest U.S. unions were $377 in 2004. And while government contractors are restricted, the bill contains no such bars for unions that receive federal money or have collective bargaining agreements with government. The AFL-CIO and SEIU can continue speaking loudly and anonymously.
The one hang-up: The NRA.
The gun group was bitter (and rightly so) that it would have to out its own donors. And its pressure on those Blue Dogs that it helps in elections was making it hard for Democrats to round up the votes. The result was this week's special deal, which was tailored to exempt the NRA from key disclosure burdens.
With its sign-on, the NRA has potentially cleared the decks for passage. Most Democrats feel they can hide the craven political purpose of this bill behind an argument for "transparency." And many Senate Democrats have been made to understand that they must support this union empowerment as penance for having failed to pass "card check." Thus the surreal sight of Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, on whom unions just spent $10 million trying to defeat in a primary, supporting a bill that will limit the ability of companies to defend her in future elections. Keep your eyes (yet again) on Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson.
As for the bill itself, even some Democrats have admitted it is likely unconstitutional. But the goal here isn't lasting legislation. The goal is to have this in place for this midterm election, when Democrats are at a low point, and when an empowered union base and a silenced corporate presence could make the difference between keeping the House and losing it. If the Supreme Court strikes it down after that, so be it. Cynicism at its finest.
The NRA's worst nightmare is that the courts strike down its blatant carveout and leave other parts of the bill intact.
The group would then get to live under the same restrictions it helped imposed on the rest of the country.
Until then, the organization can wake up each morning knowing it handed a bazooka to the unions that exist to elect Democrats who oppose everything it believes in.
Some deal.
Discuss...
Don
C/P:
quote:The National Rifle Association slipped into a Beltway backroom this week to cut a deal with Democrats on their new campaign-finance legislation. Conservatives are ripping the gun-rights group for selling out free speech, and fair enough. But don't underestimate the political sellout. The NRA has potentially armed unions and Democrats for the midterm elections.
To understand the bigger game behind the DISCLOSE Act-which the House may vote on today-look no further than its two authors: New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen. What has brought these two men together in a sudden and fervent (and previously unexpressed) passion to now lead the campaign-finance wars?
Mr. Van Hollen currently heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Mr. Schumer, until recently, headed the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and remains a member of his party's leadership. Put another way, Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Schumer exist to protect incumbents and elect more Democrats.
Why is the gun rights lobby helping Chuck Schumer (left) help unions?
Ever since the Supreme Court issued its January Citizens United decision restoring some political-speech rights to corporations and other associations, the duo have been wailing that corporations will be free to rule elections. The "winner" of this year's midterms won't be Republicans or Democrats, cried Mr. Schumer, but "Corporate America." Even President Obama weighed in, decrying the victory for "big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies . . .
What you have not heard Democrats mention is that Citizens United didn't play favorites. Corporations got new speech rights. But so too did powerful unions and liberal activist groups. Mr. Schumer and Mr. Van Hollen don't mind that part of Citizens United. Quite the opposite, they love it. The question was how to retain these new freedoms for the unions who protect and elect Democrats while denying them to corporations that might support Republicans.
America, meet the DISCLOSE act.
The bill restricts corporate political participation for companies that contract with the government or have some foreign ownership. But its real aim is to use "transparency" as a weapon. CEOs would have to appear in ads to "approve" messages. Business groups like the Chamber of Commerce would have to "out" donors who give money that might be used in political activity.
Mr. Schumer isn't arguing the new corporate rights under Citizen United; he's been forthright that his goal is rather to embarrass companies out of exercising those rights. The bill will make companies "think twice," he rejoiced. "The deterrent effect should not be underestimated." Democratic incumbents won't underestimate it.
And the unions? Carved out.
The bill technically requires both corporations and unions to report donors of more than $600 a year. But that number wasn't pulled out of a hat. The average dues of the nation's 15 largest U.S. unions were $377 in 2004. And while government contractors are restricted, the bill contains no such bars for unions that receive federal money or have collective bargaining agreements with government. The AFL-CIO and SEIU can continue speaking loudly and anonymously.
The one hang-up: The NRA.
The gun group was bitter (and rightly so) that it would have to out its own donors. And its pressure on those Blue Dogs that it helps in elections was making it hard for Democrats to round up the votes. The result was this week's special deal, which was tailored to exempt the NRA from key disclosure burdens.
With its sign-on, the NRA has potentially cleared the decks for passage. Most Democrats feel they can hide the craven political purpose of this bill behind an argument for "transparency." And many Senate Democrats have been made to understand that they must support this union empowerment as penance for having failed to pass "card check." Thus the surreal sight of Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, on whom unions just spent $10 million trying to defeat in a primary, supporting a bill that will limit the ability of companies to defend her in future elections. Keep your eyes (yet again) on Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson.
As for the bill itself, even some Democrats have admitted it is likely unconstitutional. But the goal here isn't lasting legislation. The goal is to have this in place for this midterm election, when Democrats are at a low point, and when an empowered union base and a silenced corporate presence could make the difference between keeping the House and losing it. If the Supreme Court strikes it down after that, so be it. Cynicism at its finest.
The NRA's worst nightmare is that the courts strike down its blatant carveout and leave other parts of the bill intact.
The group would then get to live under the same restrictions it helped imposed on the rest of the country.
Until then, the organization can wake up each morning knowing it handed a bazooka to the unions that exist to elect Democrats who oppose everything it believes in.
Some deal.
Discuss...
Don
0
-
Good post, Don.
There really isn't much to discuss. The facts are clear and the issues simple...
The NRA weaseled an exemption for themselves from what even they admit is unconstitutional legislation and in return, agreed to step aside and to not oppose that very same unconstitutional legislation.
As far as discussion on the unconstitutional/quisling-NRA side of the equation, you'll get scant rations there.
It is impossible to defend that which is indefensible and therefore, you'll see a few weak attempts at rationalizing and justifying, but primarily, you'll see C&P's posted by the NRA cheer-squad and paid employees here, which are written by the NRA themselves or their paid shills, for dissemination and publication.
Back and forth discussion or point counter point where the NRA's false 'talking-points' can be easily refuted, not so much.
I do think that it is critically important for us to keep bright light shining on NRA actions. These actions simply can't stand the test of scrutiny and of truth.0 -
The only concern of the NRA is harassing its members to re up their dues payments 0 -
Listened to Cam and Co. yesterday evening. 'Weasel' is a great word, Jeff.
NRA opposed and got concession.
NRA withdrew opposition, claiming they no longer had a dog in the fight. This confirms that the concession was requested, as the principled NRA would have no reason to TAKE THE ACTION of withdrawing its opposition absent quid-pro-quo.
It is a move specifically crafted to silence the NRA's opposition.
That opposition being the GOA, 2nd Amendment Foundation, etc., as there is little doubt that the Brady Center qualifies for the same exemption the NRA secured.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
3 comments