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 has released a two-page overview and a comprehensive, 19-page analysis of the provisions of the DISCLOSE Act. CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith will speak at policy briefing on the DISCLOSE Act hosted by the Cato Institute Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. in the Capitol Visitor Center.

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. Subscribe to *Shooters*

Co-sponsor the DISCLOSE Act

In January, the Supreme Court strengthened corporations' grip on our government and political process with a dangerous ruling, overturning more than 100 years of election law.

We are part of a group of senators fighting to rein in the increased influence of special interest money this decision will unleash and save our electoral process.

To combat the new, unregulated corporate influence over elections, we just unveiled the DISCLOSE Act -- because Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections.

But without your support, our legislation is never going to win the day -- we need to build support all around the country, and we need your help to do it.

As President Obama has said, the Supreme Court has given "a green light to a new stampede of special interest money."

But this decision doesn't just affect elections. It has the potential to change the very way we live in America.

Think about it: When you buy toothpaste now, the money you spend can be used directly for television ads attacking people that you believe in without you even knowing.

We have to respond.

We all have to get in this battle, and we all have to fight it from every angle.

Thank you for signing our petition.

Chuck Schumer
U.S. Senator

Russ Feingold
U.S. Senator
Patrick Leahy

U.S. Senator

The DISCLOSE Act legislation will address seven major points:

1. Enhance Disclaimers
Make CEOs and other leaders take responsibility for their ads.

2. Enhance Disclosures
It is time to follow the money.

3. Prevent Foreign Influence
Foreign countries and entities should not be determining the outcome of our elections.

4. Shareholder/Member Disclosure
We should allow shareholders and members to know where money goes.

5. Prevent Government Contractors from Spending
Taxpayer money should not be spent on political ads.

6. Provide the Lowest Unit Rate for Candidates and Parties

Special interests should not drown out the voices of the people.

7. Tighten Coordination Rules
Corporations should not be able to “sponsor” a candidate.

Citizen co-sponsors:

THe fucking traitors even put up a website for this: http://www.discloseact.com/

The cynical decision this week by House Democrats to exempt the National Rifle Association from the latest campaign finance regulatory scheme is itself a public disclosure. It reveals the true purpose of the perversely named Disclose Act (H.R. 5175): namely, to silence congressional critics in the 2010 elections.

The NRA "carve-out" reaffirms the wisdom of the First Amendment's precise language: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."

Congress can't help itself. Since 1798, with the Alien and Sedition Acts, incumbent politicians have yearned for legal duct tape for their opponents' mouths. The Disclose Act is a doozy of a muzzle.

For its part, the NRA -- on whose board of directors I serve -- rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for "neutrality" from the legislation's requirements. In doing so, 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.

Since the court's January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations cannot be constitutionally prohibited from making independent candidate-related expenditures, Democrats have been hyperventilating at the notion that corporations might spend millions of dollars criticizing them. To foreclose that possibility, the Disclose Act would impose onerous and complicated "disclosure" restrictions on organizations that dare to engage in constitutionally protected political speech and on corporations that dare to contribute to such organizations.

Democrats would effectively neuter the court's decision by requiring the names of multiple donors to be recited in ads (thus shrinking the time spent on actual speech), requiring the CEO of a corporate donor to personally appear in campaign-related ads, expanding the coverage period to virtually the entire election year, and including myriad other rules that the NRA described last month as "byzantine" and an "arbitrary patchwork of reporting and disclosure requirements."

The NRA's wheel-squeaking bought it an exemption from those requirements. Tea Party organizations arising spontaneously since 2009? Out of luck. Online organizations with large e-mail followings but perhaps no formal dues structure? Forget it.

Receiving less attention than the NRA "carve-out" but no less cynical is the bill's sop to organized labor: Aggregate contributions of $600 or more would be disclosed. Why start at $600? Why not $200 or, say, $500? Because most union members' dues aggregate less than $600 in a calendar year and thus members' contributions to labor's campaign-related spending wouldn't need to be disclosed . . . even to the union members whose dues are spent for political purposes.

In Citizens United, the court held that the First Amendment doesn't permit Congress to treat different corporations differently; that the protections afforded political speech arise from the Constitution, not Congress. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to a congressional power to license the speech of some while denying it to others.

The NRA carve-out is a clear example of a congressional speech license.

The ostensible purpose of the legislation is benign "disclosure," upheld in Citizens United as permissible under the First Amendment. Even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed skepticism about the constitutional infirmity of disclosure requirements in another case argued this term; Scalia intoned in oral argument that "running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage."

That's true. Indeed, the law upheld in Citizens United requires all donors to candidate-related expenditures to be publicly disclosed to the FEC in a timely manner.

But the Disclose Act isn't really intended to elicit information not currently required by law. The act serves notice on certain speakers that their involvement in the political process will exact a high price of regulation, penalty and notoriety, using disclosure and reporting as a subterfuge to chill their political speech and association.

It is only disclosure, say the authors. And box-cutters are only handy household tools . . . until they are used by terrorists to crash airplanes.

This is not just "disclosure." It is a scheme hatched by political insiders to eradicate disfavored speech. There is no room under the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with the NRA or anyone else.

The writer is a partner at Foley & Lardner who works in campaign finance law and is a member of the NRA's board of directors.

I was a member at one time. Not because I wanted to be, but because the shooting range required it for insurance purposes.

They do this squandering of dues because they're always trolling for new prospects, to maintain the illusion of millions of dedicated supporters to increase their political clout, to make the still-loyal members think that the organization is busy, busy, busy. For the real money, that is often from foundations or estate bequests and such. Or it is a way for one political party or the other to fund attacks on opposition candidates in states where the organization is strong.

It's gotten so you can't send any organization money. They'll sell your name and bio to anyone with a buck once they conclude that you've gone 'dry' as a resource to them. They regard you as a raw material for their organization to consume and then dispose of.

As for the NRA, I've been trying to figure out if they made this Chicago-style deal just to scorch the entire DISCLOSE legislation. If they can make it collapse or stall, they can defeat it that way. Also, if big corporate money starts coming into politics, that may dilute or diminish NRA clout in many political races.

Feinstein and other Senate Dims got very riled over the NRA carve-out. It is endangering passage in the Senate.

I'm thinking NRA was willing to make the deal, not caring if their inclusion as exempt would doom it. Either way, NRA would see it as win-win.

I'm surprised we're not seeing a greater outcry from NRA members. A lot of other RKBA organizations will be hit by this. People like GOA and the stronger state firearms associations. People once boycotted S&W over the deal they cut with Xlinton, hurt them pretty badly. NRA plays it a little too insider for me; I've always like the smaller RKBA groups like GOA better.

With this "carve out" it is very likely the legislation, if passed, cannot withstand an "equal protection" challenge. It stinks to high heaven.

Gun Owner's of America is the only 2nd Amendment Defense organization worthy of our support (And OFF - The Oregon Firearms Association. Kevin Starret who runs OFF is also GOA's Legislative Manager for Oregon - and a friend, but that's beside the point - NO COMPROMISE NO PRISONERS). The NRA are not merely pussies but co-dependent quislings.

NEWSROOM

Press Release

‘Shotgun Sellout’: House Democrats cut special deal with NRA

Co-sponsor the DISCLOSE Act

The DISCLOSE Act legislation will address seven major points:

Citizen co-sponsors: