Did NRA get in bed with Dems on DISCLOSE ACT & ditch 1st Amendment for others?
The National Rifle Association, usually synonymous with Conservative values and protecting our Constitutional rights, seemingly had a weak moment when it appeared they crawled in bed with the Democrats to secure an exemption with the DISCLOSE Act.
The Disclose Act will circumvent the Supreme Court decision last January that allowed 501C4 groups, like NRA or 501C3 groups, like National Right to Life to communicate with their members and run political ads 90 days prior to election time.
NRA Executive VP LaPierre explained The Disclose Act exempts free media outlets like NBC, ABC, newspapers, etc., and politicians from restricted speech. According to LaPierre, he said he told Congressman Shuler (D-N. Carolina) they need to carve out every 501 C3 organization as being exempt from the restriction, but after the amendment was crafted, it turned out to just carve out NRA and a few others from the restriction.
Redstate disagrees with LaPierre's story in National Rifle Association's First Amendment Sellout. You can read it and the Newsmax one below and decide for yourself his role in the bill.
But whether the NRA was playing footsie with the Democrats on the DISCLOSE ACT to protect their 2nd Amendment rights, the bigger point is that DISCLOSE is a terrible bill. In Democrats 'Within Striking Distance' on Disclose Act, we learn the real reason for the bill:
"Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans A. Von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, tells Newsmax that the timing of the legislation indicates its true purpose is muzzling groups that otherwise might freely voice their opposition to Democratic policies in campaign ads.
The Disclose Act, also known as H.R. 5175, is written so that it takes effect 30 days after passage -- just in time to impact the November midterms."
This rushed time frame is not consistent with other election regulation laws. Von Spakovsky explains, "...because whenever a new statute gets passed on campaign finance reform, the FEC has the job of creating the regulations needed to implement the statute. There is just no way the FEC, which I served on for two years, could in two months come up with regulations to enforce this law."
Bradley Smith, a former Fed. Election Commission Chairman called DISCLOSE "one of the most partisan pieces of legislation to come down the pike." In another Newsmax interview, Smith indicated "the bill would shackle the political activities of corporations and associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, while leaving unions largely free to influence political outcomes."
I agree with Heritage Foundation's legal scholar Von Spakovsky, "This is a bad law because it infringes on people's right to speak politically." Now do you want to make that call?
Links: Practically Speaking, Betterbrookfield, RandyMelchert, Jay Weber, Vicki McKenna, The Right View Wisconsin, CNS News, Mark Levin, Breitbart BigGovernment, The Heritage Foundation