Getting themselves exempted from the Disclosure Bill was a slick move by the NRA.

[GreenStormCloud]

Whether you like the NRA, or hate it, that they got themselves exempted from the Disclure Bill was a major financial coup for the NRA. It will allow people and corporations to donate to campaigns for/against specific candidates via the NRA. The NRA takes no position on any issue except those effecting the RKBA so they can endorse a candidate who may be pro-choice, and another who is anti-choice. Gay rights, except for the right to be legally armed, isn't an issue for them.

Organizations who are for a candidate for reasons other than guns, but who happens to be positioned right on guns can be helped by that organization without disclosure. It also works the other way too. If you are against a candidate, and he happens to be anti-gun, then you can donate via the NRA.

This could dramatically increase the NRA political budget, as corporations support/oppose candidates based on other issues, but take advantage of the candidate being right on guns.

They are going to take in money from both Republicans and Democrats, although not in the same races.

Of course, an increased budget means an increase in power.

[tularetom]

1. Then maybe they'll stop whining to me about money

I get at least one fear mongering letter from these assholes every month.

I was a member for many years until the fuckers went off the deep end and decided to start scaring the crap out of stupid people.

It's a shame because it used to be a good organization.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. +1

I'm sick of their begging, too.

[msongs]

3. another victory for America's OCD corporate enemies nt

[one-eyed fat man]

5. It's not corporate, OCD or any other!

Read the exemption. It mentions the NRA not at all!

Over the weekend, House Democrats agreed to an exemption from the disclosure requirements for organizations that have been in existence for a decade, have at least 1 million dues-paying members and do not use any corporate or labor union money to finance their campaign-related expenditures. emphasis added

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061600767.html

So organizations that really exist to funnel corporate money or groups that have no membership but are mouthpieces for wealthy foundations can be expected to howl, and they are. On the other hand, Wayne LaPierre and Paul Helmke have a similar problem: If there is no strife, they have no job. Aside from that, one has four million dues paying members, the other has no dues paying members, and uses half the money they get from the Joyce Foundation for his salary.

[safeinOhio]

6. If the court has said $=speech?

this law limits speech. Would this include DU then?

[GreenStormCloud]

9. Thanks for clearing up how that works. N/T

[safeinOhio]

4. Tea Party wins out.

They are all pro RKBA, anti-gay, anti-abortion and pro corporate rights. Lets just give all single wedge issue orgs the same deal. I see no difference in this than the pre shall issue laws. Only give rights to those that support a political issue. Giving rights to only a select few? Doesn't sound like the fairness and sound thinking you normally argue? If the shoe was on the other foot, unlimited rights for the Brady campaign, you'd be singing a different tune and would have no grounds to disagree with it using your argument for support for this. Limit rights to the few.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. I didn't say I approved, I said it was a slick move.

The difference seems to be lost on you. And it was a very skillful move on the part of the NRA. I didn't say it was right or wrong.

Since the move does benifit me, I won't complain about it.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Oh yes! Just look what kind of thing money can buy!

[onehandle]

10. Another Republican victory celebrated in the gungeon.

What a 'surprise.'

[GreenStormCloud]

11. AARP is GOP????

As explained by one-eyed fat man in his post above, the AARP also qualifies. Since the NRA defends gun rights only, they are not GOP or Democatic. But you knew that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. The factose-intolerant won't like that pointed out n/t

[SteveM]

17. Careful, now. Please be mannerly. nt

[PavePusher]

13. From another website...

this is how it was explained:

'The stipulation is "non-profit organizations would be exempt from disclosure requirements if they are more than a decade old, have more than 1 million members and raise no more than 15% of their money from corporations."'



Well, it would go to prove that the vast majority of their funding comes from actual individuals and not the "gun makers conspiracy" so many around here whinge about.

Score!

[TheWraith]

14. They're not the only ones.

While this bill allegedly covers unions, it excludes groups where the aggregate donations for a single person is below $600 a year, which means most unions won't have to report. So basically they're writing a bill that exempts two of the largest single-issue lobbying blocs.

Personally, I don't really see a problem exempting organizations that raise money based on small donations from individuals or dues-paying members, but I don't approve of pretending that such organizations ARE regulated when they're not.

[Pullo]

15. This is just another way for the NRA to further sqeeze out other pro-RKBA advocates

The NRA is keeping with its top priority, which consists solely looking out for the NRA. Free speech and 2nd A issues aren't the concern here, folks.

[spin]

16. The only way the bill would have a chance of passing was with NRA support ...

How Dems' NRA loophole backfired
6/18/10 12:56

Hatched over the last few weeks by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) with backing from House Democratic leaders and the White House, it was a legislative maneuver rich with the kind of irony that often goes unremarked in Washington — a classic backroom special interest deal to help pass a bill that would require heightened disclosure of special interest spending on campaign ads.

The idea was to neutralize opposition to tough new campaign spending rules from one particularly powerful special interest group, the National Rifle Association, by exempting it as well as the left-leaning Sierra Club and the ecumenical Humane Society and AARP from certain disclosure requirements in the bill. But while the maneuver was effective in getting the NRA to back down, the deal sparked a backlash that pitted big-money special interest groups, including some traditional allies, against each other, and turned fence-sitters and even some supporters of the bill into opponents.

Short of the votes needed for passage in the House, the bill was pulled Thursday night by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Nonetheless, a House Democratic leadership aide said Van Hollen and House Democratic leaders intend to honor the deal and stick by the plan. They consider it the only path to passage for the bill, which has little Republican support and dim prospects in the Senate. The aide pointed out that the deal did not cost the bill the support of any of the major groups pushing for stricter campaign finance rules.

“The legislation itself is so important that Public Citizen is still going to continue supporting passage,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the group. But he bemoaned what he said were “special interests groups trying to make sure that this law applies to everyone except them. No one should be carved out.”

***snip***

Many special interest groups would be affected by the DISCLOSE Act since they are registered as non-profit corporations, and literally hundreds of them had come out in opposition to the bill. But Van Hollen’s team was most concerned about the NRA, which in a show of strength in April forced Democrats to mothball a bill to grant the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress by demonstrating that it had the votes to simultaneously repeal the District’s strict gun control laws. They calculated that the NRA’s opposition similarly could single-handedly sink the DISCLOSE Act by spooking conservative House Democrats whose support was needed to pass the bill, but for whom NRA opposition could be the kiss of death in an anti-incumbent election year expected to favor Republicans.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38713.html#ixzz0rDv90CiD


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38713.html#ixzz0rDuw2Kcv

[SteveM]

18. Good post. Beware of your own heat-seeking missle.