‘Shotgun Sellout’: House Democrats cut special deal with NRA
June 14, 2010
House Democrats held a shotgun wedding between campaign finance "reformers" and the National Rifle Association today in announcing a carve out for the powerful gun lobby in a bill responding to the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.
The "Shotgun Sellout" exempts large organizations from the most burdensome regulations of the DISCLOSE Act, "Democratic Incumbents Seek to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections," while pistol whipping genuine grassroots groups.
"The Democratic majority has decided that established, powerful interest groups should be exempted from the proposed draconian regulations, while small advocacy groups should have their voices silenced by the DISCLOSE Act," said Center for Competitive Politics President Sean Parnell. "Exempting the National Rifle Association from these regulations while local groups such as the Oregon Firearms Federation would face stifling regulations if they choose to exercise their First Amendment rights simply cannot be considered ‘reform.'"
"This sort of special carve out for an established interest group is just the kind of insider manipulation that gives the public the sense that Congress is unresponsive to the concerns of ordinary Americans," said Allison Hayward, CCP's Vice President of Policy. "How can it be that invasive and onerous disclosure requirements are proper when applied to small, regional interest groups but not large, wealthy national groups?"
"This exception could serve to entrench political organization, discourage local participation in civic groups, and undermine the civic involvement that Alexis de Tocqueville identified as uniquely American and one of America's great strengths," she added.
According to Capitol Hill sources, the Rules Committee will likely hold a Wednesday hearing to advance the DISCLOSE Act to the House floor by the end of the week.
Draft amendment affecting the NRA as part of a "Manager's Amendment" for consideration this week in the House Rules Committee: Exempt section 501(c)(4) organizations" are also exempt from new reporting requirements. These are organizations which have qualified as having tax exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code for each of the 10 years prior to making a campaign- related disbursement, that had 1 million or more dues-paying members in the prior calendar year, that had members in each of the 50 states, that received no more than 15 percent of their total funding from corporations or labor organizations, and that do not use any corporate or union money to pay for their campaign-related expenditures.
The Center for Competitive Politics is a nonpartisan, nonprofit group dedicated to protecting First Amendment political rights. CCP seeks to deregulate the political marketplace of ideas through research, litigation and advocacy.
All of this mumbo jumbo is to keep us and our electoral system tied to money rackets that shouldn't have any influence over it anyway. Corporations and groups shouldn't get an extra big "ventriloquist" voice in addition to all of the individual voices they're comprised of. Lobbying is bribery and should be abolished, punishable with prisontime. Open our airwaves free of charge with equal time for all candidates. Lots of corruption problems solved in a snap.
#10. To: GreyLmist, PSUSA, Lod, Original_Intent, wudidiz, abraxas (#8)
Lobbying is bribery and should be abolished, punishable with prisontime.
I disagree. As a former lobbyist, I can tell you it depends on what your definition of lobbying is. I was good at what I did and money was never involved.
Me: Lobbying is bribery and should be abolished, punishable with prisontime.
You: I disagree. As a former lobbyist, I can tell you it depends on what your definition of lobbying is. I was good at what I did and money was never involved.....
What was involved if not money? We pay for their time and they aren't supposed to be "moonlighting" on the side for any additional "perks". If lobbyists want them to work for their lobby's interests, put them on the lobby's payroll. We'll fire them and hire someone else more ethical to take their place.
#15. To: GreyLmist, PSUSA, Lod, Original_Intent, wudidiz, abraxas (#13)
What was involved if not money?
Reasoned argument. I lobbied for the Grange which is a true grass roots organization. There is no Grange policy that didn't come from a local Grange first, working its way up through the system. We went and talked to legislators and worked to get our membership involved in the legislative process. Mostly the votes fell the way I wanted because I gave them a valid reason for voting that way and cover if the vote caused them problems during an election.
What bothers me about calls to outlaw lobbying is that what you get is not going to be what you wanted. Government regulation is NEVER the answer nor should conservatives call for government regulation. That's what bothers me about conservatives in general. They always say they want government out of their lives, smaller government, less regulation etc then they turn around and call for laws like this. "Lobbying should be illegal". Why? Because some asshole legislator can't resist temptation?
No, the real problem was when the Supreme Court gave corporations the same rights as people. We should be working to overturn this judicial ruling not working to take rights away from those who have done nothing wrong.
What bothers me about calls to outlaw lobbying is that what you get is not going to be what you wanted. Government regulation is NEVER the answer nor should conservatives call for government regulation. That's what bothers me about conservatives in general. They always say they want government out of their lives, smaller government, less regulation etc then they turn around and call for laws like this. "Lobbying should be illegal". Why? Because some asshole legislator can't resist temptation?
Why, yes. That is why, in addition to some other reasons like lobbyists having undue access to all of our Congressional officials and we, the employers they are supposed to be working fulltime for, having our concerns confined to our zoned employees. We pay their paychecks. Pay us by the minute, not more for them, if you want a special interest appointment with them in person as if you're a conglomerate or something. Pay us more by the minute if your company is based out of their state or district. We also should have our own observers at the meeting. Otherwise, make a quick phone call to them, or contact them by mail, or fax them like the rest of us individual folks among their constituency do.
No, the real problem was when the Supreme Court gave corporations the same rights as people. We should be working to overturn this judicial ruling
That nonesense should never have been crafted and that bizarre abberation is no excuse for corporations to work invasively and traitorously against our Constitutional Republic with their high-falutin' freakshows.
not working to take rights away from those who have done nothing wrong.
farmfriend, special interests/business interests/outside interests/money interests and so on have been doing so many things so wrong for so long that America can hardly function anymore as our Founder's designed it to for We the People of the Constitution who are their posterity. None of those interests have the right to displace our system with one more to their liking and we don't have to abide any of their subversive connivings as our "law".
#19. To: GreyLmist, *Constitution Party*, *libertarians* (#18)
Why, yes. That is why, in addition to some other reasons like lobbyists having undue access to all of our Congressional officials and we, the employers they are supposed to be working fulltime for, having our concerns confined to our zoned employees. We pay their paychecks. Pay us by the minute, not more for them, if you want a special interest appointment with them in person as if you're a conglomerate or something. Pay us more by the minute if your company is based out of their state or district. We also should have our own observers at the meeting. Otherwise, make a quick phone call to them, or contact them by mail, or fax them like the rest of us individual folks among their constituency do.
You really don't understand what I'm talking about do you? Your concept of what a lobbyist is has been warped and you want to punish everyone for the sins of a few. You are right up there with those who want to take guns away from citizens because crooks have them. I spoke for the average citizen, not a corporation. I was paid to do it, that makes me a lobbyist, not something evil. I walked into congressional offices same as you would. Sat down and talked with either the Congress person or their aides same as you would. Only difference is that I spoke for a group and you would be speaking for yourself. Yet you make this out to be something it is not. Like I said, warped. What you are asking for is to deny that group of people from having someone travel to Washington and speak for them. What gives you the right to do that? What part of free speech did you not understand?
farmfriend, special interests/business interests/outside interests/money interests and so on have been doing so many things so wrong for so long that America can hardly function anymore as our Founder's designed it to for We the People of the Constitution who are their posterity. None of those interests have the right to displace our system with one more to their liking and we don't have to abide any of their subversive connivings as our "law".
Special interests? How would you define that? Would you call a Tea Party group a special interest? Should they be denied a voice? Do you think that if you get your way that won't happen? A lobbyist for a corporation doesn't speak for all its members. Same with a union. But that is not the case with the Grange. As I said before policy is set by the membership not the leadership. Yet you would deny them their free speech rights?
What you are asking for is to deny that group of people from having someone travel to Washington and speak for them. What gives you the right to do that? What part of free speech did you not understand?
We have a system to have people travel to Washington and speak for us. They're called Congressmen.
Lobbyists interfere with that system and corrupt it.