DISCLOSE Act Exemption: Only Big, Powerful Lobbies Need Apply

The Center for Competitive Politics reports that House Democrats are trying to mollify opponents of the DISCLOSE Act, which would impose onerous, lopsided burdens and restrictions on independent political speech, with the following amendment:

"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.

Guess which widely feared Washington lobby meets those criteria:

"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?"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    You know, the latest push to protect incumbents from any possible challenge is really disgusting.

  • ||

    It's like a new thing every day. I think it stems from the fact that they're sensing a big potential turnover in the next few elections (not just of Dems, but incumbents in general) and they're worried that they'll lose their seat.

  • ||

    I agree Epi; I don't think Imelda Marcos had enough shoes in her collection to fill the waiting quota here, though I submit in our instant information density age, I think we just hear more than we ever have. And it is the lack of controls (for now) on that flow of information that incumbents fear, the ability to control the narrative.

    I look at this Al Greene fellow and the MSM is up in arms that, from their perspective, an "unqualified" noob bumped out a more palatable candidate in their eyes and somehow the "system is broken." And we are seeing this more and more from TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE more than I have seen in my lifetime, personally. The polarizing approach to governance, the lacking of deference to liberty, the pandering to the entitlement mindset of both individuals and business is being exposed at a level which I think (don't shoot me for saying this) is unprecedented.

    Pols are being exposed for the disingenuous, lying shitbags that they are, on the whole; the lack of equitable distribution of applying laws and standards that the ruling class expects, yet absolves themselves from, is absolutely disheartening. And those who are in charge are absolutely convinced that if they aren't passing more laws then they aren't doing their jobs.

    I have often read the best managers are the least hands on and tend not to meddle when good employees, tenacious with attention to detail, perform their jobs to the best of their ability. I don't see this with government, the ultimate window breaker and most incompetent of glaziers.

    Government to me is that spinster neighborhood gossip with the thirteen cats that has nothing better to do but make mischief and spread rumors and strife in the neighborhood, letting her cats run amok and her collecting SS at the cost of her neighbors, except government has guns and the kooky neighbor doesn't. TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE will a) keep that spinster happy so b) both TEAM RED and TEAM will promise to the neighbors that they will "fix" the problem of this shrew, yet know damn well they can't because liberty dictates the crone can live her life as she sees fit, until they eminent domain her property for a crony capitalist interest.

    I'm just thouroughly disgusted with the whole mess and voting for gridlock, which may be in itself be a fool's errand as TEAM RED and TEAM blue are the two sides of the same statist nanny coin.

  • ||

    Please grok TEAM BLUE in the appropriate places. Preview dammit!

  • ||

    And we are seeing this more and more from TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE more than I have seen in my lifetime, personally.

    I feel the same way, but the perception of "now" being the most...anything...is a common one, and I worry about falling into a misconception. I think what we may be seeing is more of a perfect storm of normal retarded partisanship combined with a huge MSM hard-on or hate-on for Obama, which just makes it seem that much more TEAM RED TEAM BLUE.

    I don't know. If we get gridlock and it all calms down, then we'll know what was up.

  • ||

    but the perception of "now" being the most...anything...is a common one, and I worry about falling into a misconception.

    Agreed. It is a matter of perception, like when the printing press was invented, and the ruling class was sure widespread literacy would be the end of civilization, civilization being another way of saying "their power." So, you are correct, in terms of immediate perception. With the global information being more accessible than ever before, it just seems that way in terms of comparing it to the entire history of the US. It could be argued that the 60's were more turbulent than now, and in terms of violence, then was historically more turbulent, but now seems even more statist and superficially polarized since TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE are virtually indistinguishable and power is centralized through entitlements.

    The destination is the same, each are just taking different roads.

  • ||

    It's been worse than this before. I think what is going on is that the gerrymandering to make "safe" seats is falling apart, as people are hating Congress so much that many of these extreme districts aren't sufficient to prevent voter revolt.

  • ||

    I have often read the best managers are the least hands on and tend not to meddle when good employees, tenacious with attention to detail, perform their jobs to the best of their ability.

    And the best bank security guards are the ones who never interfere with the good, honest, nonviolent people who walk through the door.

    Point being, if employees were typically as you describe, you wouldn't need a manager.

  • ||

    Point being, if employees were typically as you describe, you wouldn't need a manager.

    That's the thing Tulpa, I do believe employees are typically like that.

    However, you are correct that even the most ideal and optimal employee, by virtue of being human, makes mistakes. Or, more commonly, loses sight of the idea that employment is a contract between an employer and an employee, where the employee agrees to perform work for something in return, either at a negotiated price or what the market will bear, in a true free market system. See also: complacency. Then, out of self-interest, two things happen: unionization of some kind, or workers develop the "too many chiefs and not enough indians" syndrome, and some sort of over compensating employment hierarchy is established (or both). Hence, the birth of inefficient middle management, and IMO, should almost always be thinned first before trimming the highest levels or the lowest, depending on the nature of the business. China is now realizing all of this phenomena now, and due to sheer population size, very very quickly.

  • ||

    I do believe employees are typically like that.

    No offense, but I suspect that giddy belief has been molded by being in the medical profession.

    It won't survive a tenure as manager of a fast food restaurant, gas station, or retail store. When doing your job means putting the right amount of onion cubes on every burger, 500 times a day, 5 days a week, you're going to have a slightly different attitude toward your work than if you're saving lives.

  • ||

    The sort of people who wind up in the medical profession would likely be quite diligent about putting the right amount of onion cubes on each burger. But, if they were put in such a position re: burgers, they would quickly be promoted to doing something more meaningful that uses that diligence.

  • Liberty Gal||

    ".....worried that they'll lose their seat."

    They will.

  • Bingo||

    This is what happens when the government no longer needs to follow any rules. They make laws that further entrench their own power and make it difficult to take away. Nothing to see here, just politics as usual in America (land of the free, home of the brave).

  • ||

    It's the Supreme Court's job to invalidate this shit, but I trust them about as far as I can throw Oprah.

  • Bingo||

    The Supreme Court are 9 referees that are drafted by Team Red and Team Blue from the ranks of Team Red and Team Blue.

    You can't expect them to call an honest game.

  • ||

    Yeah, well, do you recall the vote breakdown on Citizens United? From a libertarian perspective, one of those teams did a lot better on that one.

  • ||

    It's almost like they are incapable of understanding the phrase, "Congress shall make no law ..."

    Or they just don't care about doing that because it's not expedient, oath of office be damned.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Nothing like a million member lower limit to encourage the little guy to speak up, y'all.

  • LarryA||

    Guess which widely feared Washington lobby meets those criteria:

    AARP.

  • Corduroy||

    Can't wait till they call me and I get to tell them to f off

  • Mo||

    It's the NRA.

  • skr||

    :sigh:

  • ||

    I don't understand how all of this exceptions crap that's everywhere in the Federal Register survives Equal Protection.

  • Bingo||

    Because this government doesn't feel the need to follow rules and is completely unaccountable for its actions. "Just a damn piece of paper" etc etc

  • Yonemoto||

    Equal protection only applies to the states read the constitution.

  • CatoTheElder||

    All fair and decent people want the political process to become more civil.

    The DISCLOSE Act has great potential to make substantial progress toward that end. By imposing burdensome reporting requirements on political upstarts, the State can strangle potential opposition in the crib. Once strangled, the upstarts won't have opportunity to contradict their betters.

    The Constitution was established to form a more perfect Union. That 1st Amendment allows freedom speech only to the extent that it is not destructive to that end, and all that dissent does not unify us as we march down the road to serfdom.

  • ||

    I thought the Supreme Court recently made this sort of nonsense, er, nonsense.

  • ||

    And people laughed when I said we needed the Censor.

  • ||

    I didn't. My only concern with Office of the Censor is: who censors the Censor? Who is pulling his or her strings?

    I'd support you in such a capacity, but then I am biased towards my Dune Fremen brethren.

  • ||

    I think limited censorial power can be done easily enough, mostly through checks on its power held by the other branches.

    However, the problem of keeping the branch from being used improperly (e.g., for advancement of a political party) is a serious one, and I can't think of a surefire way of avoiding it. Then again, we have that problem everywhere else.

  • ||

    Well, they were laughing at you, not so much the idea. But you can shake it off, buddy. Everybody gets laughed at sometimes. You want an ice cream? You want to go to Chuck E Cheese? I know how much you like Jasper T. Jowls, big guy.

  • ||

    You seem to know a little too much about Chuck E. Cheese, Epi, WAY too much! Do you just hang around the place with a soda and a slice leering or the way you sweet talk your bridge skanks, promising them fine a la carte dining and a musical show?

  • ||

    Both. But you should know this; you're the one who taught me.

  • ||

    I go to Chuck E. Cheese for the video games, fartknocker. You merely tagged along and got the wrong idea that Chuck E. Cheese is your personal candy store. That tea must be anesthetizing your memory. Pervert.

  • ||

    But what of Showbiz? What of Showbiz?

  • ben||

    Here about all those minerals they found in Afghanistan?

  • hmm||

    Attack Weiner

    No clue on the validity. But the whole thing seems a bit shoddy for a study. I like the citing of endorsement adds.

  • l0b0t||

    Yep, heard about them in the 1970s from the Soviets, again in the 1990s from the Chinese, and yet again in 2007 when Foreign Affairs had an article about the Lithium. Why is this being reported as a new event?

  • ||

    Apparently the new information is far more detailed, and the resources turn out to be far more extensive.

  • ||

    And since we (the evil imperialist Americans) are there, it's an opportunity for lefty journalism to further question our motives for remaining there, or even going there in the first place.

  • Warty||

    Volume MMMMDXXI in the award-winning series, We're Fucked.

  • ||

    "Local police envision using them to track fleeing suspects."

    Damn, they LIVE for that sort of thing.

  • Jason||

    Only LEOs without a doughnut/Starbucks addiction.

  • objector||

    I don't know what to say.

  • Chinny Chin Chin||

    Relax! If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear!

  • juris imprudent||

    And then the NRA "leadership" wonders why people refer to them as sell-outs.

    Why the nerve!

  • ||

    LOL< corruption is bliss! Only in America!

    Lou
    www.anonymity.au.tc

  • 2010 Voter||

    You know, the latest push to protect incumbents from any possible challenge is really disgusting.

    As more and more people join the ranks of the disgusted, these shenanigans backfire on the incumbents more and more.

  • Kevin Starrett||

    NRA all over again. They rolled over for McCain who brought millions in out of state money to attack Oregon gun owners, and now this deal. Nothing new. Just sad that so many people still think they are doing something good.

  • LarryA||

    Did I miss the NRA "this is a good deal" press release? Is there any evidence they've bought in on the idea?

    And, again, I'd guess the Dems are a lot more likely to be counting AARP votes.

  • JB||

    Democrats = pieces of shit.

    Stalin is their idol.

    I can't wait to see those fetuses get all sorts of abortions.

  • objector||

    I don't know what to say to this either.

  • Lster921||

    The Hegelian principals always work as long as there are only 2 parties. Personally, the whole thing can go to hell if they think they are gonna shut me up with a law as ridiculous as this one.
    Oregons gun laws are as good as they are because of people like Kevin Starrett and O.F.F.
    Seems the present admin. has made the NRA the approved gun owner voice and I am sure that the NRA is happy as hell over it.
    They can kiss my ass and I will say and do just about anything I please as far as speaking out for myself.
    If we live in fear, they win.
    If you comply, they have won.
    If you don't comply, well, you got a fight on your hands.
    Do what you have to and let it go where it will.
    Better to die standing, as they say.

  • ||

    Quisling weasels sit on the board and happily embrace the slimey management suite. Hdqtrs needs a thorough disinfecting.

  • Carlos Perdue||

    The NRA has long been controlled by people who are enemies of liberty and is the primary actual mover of gun control in the USA, including: The Gun Control Act of 1968 (prior restraint, de facto registration, etc.), the Volkmer McClure machine gun ban, "InstaCheck" (more de facto registration), Lautenberg (effective criminal penalty of loss of gun rights by judicial decree of DVRO without presumption of innocence or jury trial), Project Exile (federalization, felonization, "zero-tolerance full-enforcement of all existing gun controls"), "Gun-Free" School Zones, repeatedly working with Sarah Brady and other gun prohibitionists, for example to revoke the gun rights of 150,000 Veterans (and counting) who previously had psychological problems ... Refusing to even try to block anti-gun nominations and grade against pols who vote for them... Giving phony A grades to tens of thousands of politicians who vote for gun bans... the list goes on...

    The NRA is a sterile bee queen to neutralize and misdirect activists and donors who don't know. See NRAWatch.org, for example.

    Only GOA and the grassroots groups can be trusted. Anyone who donates to the NRA is helping them destroy liberty.

    I say that as an endowment member of the NRA since 1978, who realizes he was defrauded and would like his money back to give it to OFF or GOA instead.

  • Byron||

    *Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act*

    The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.

    In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.

    The NRA's opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA's right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.

    The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

    The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.

    Thus, the NRA's first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America's lawful gun owners.

    On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.

    The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.

    The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.


    Thanks for standing on principles, NRA! Iron Law, indeed...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement