NRA Threatens Senators Who Support Campaign Finance Disclosure

[Lakhota]

By Josh Israel

In a letter opposing the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 — a bill to allow citizens to know what corporations and wealthy donors are paying for the “independent expenditure” attack ads enabled by the 5-4 Citizens United ruling — the National Rifle Association (NRA) is warning Senators it will score the issue in its legislative scorecard for this Congress.

The NRA opposes the measure — arguing that its “provisions require organizations to turn membership and donor lists over to the government” and would unconstitutionally abridge the right of citizens “to speak and associate privately and anonymously.” The legislation would merely require groups that opt to run outside political ads to tell voters which donors funded those efforts. By setting up a separate bank account for independent political spending, a group like the NRA would be able to keep its membership list private and would need only disclose the large money donors paying for the group’s campaign ads. Far from being unconstitutional, this sort of disclosure was explicitly endorsed in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Citizens United majority opinion as “the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations.”

In other words, vulnerable Senators facing re-election may face secret-money attack ads should they back transparency for secret money attack ads.

More: NRA Warns Senators Not To Support Disclosure | ThinkProgress

 

[Lakhota]

I was a member of the NRA for about 30 years - until they got really crazy and ultra-political.

 

[Lakhota]

Politics Discuss government policies and candidates...

 

[Steelplate]

Seems to me that if you believe strongly in something, you shouldn't be a little pussy and hide behind a cryptic name like Americans for Prosperity or Citizens United.

 

[McDowell's]

Seems to me that if you believe strongly in something, you shouldn't be a little pussy and hide behind a cryptic name like Americans for Prosperity or Citizens United.

But the pussiest, most cryptic name is Code Pink!

 

[Charles_Main]

I was a member of the NRA for about 30 years - until they got really crazy and ultra-political.

I actually happen to agree to a point. Some of the Positions they take are so Extreme. However I don't see many other Groups willing to stand up for our Right to Bear arms.

 

[PredFan]

By Josh Israel

In a letter opposing the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 — a bill to allow citizens to know what corporations and wealthy donors are paying for the “independent expenditure” attack ads enabled by the 5-4 Citizens United ruling — the National Rifle Association (NRA) is warning Senators it will score the issue in its legislative scorecard for this Congress.

The NRA opposes the measure — arguing that its “provisions require organizations to turn membership and donor lists over to the government” and would unconstitutionally abridge the right of citizens “to speak and associate privately and anonymously.” The legislation would merely require groups that opt to run outside political ads to tell voters which donors funded those efforts. By setting up a separate bank account for independent political spending, a group like the NRA would be able to keep its membership list private and would need only disclose the large money donors paying for the group’s campaign ads. Far from being unconstitutional, this sort of disclosure was explicitly endorsed in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Citizens United majority opinion as “the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations.”

In other words, vulnerable Senators facing re-election may face secret-money attack ads should they back transparency for secret money attack ads.

More: NRA Warns Senators Not To Support Disclosure | ThinkProgress

Wow, an article from a liberal hack website.

Pretty lame.

 

[Truthmatters]

they did this.

Its fact.


they are not about what they claim to be about.


they are a political right wing tool

 

[Lakhota]

By Josh Israel

In a letter opposing the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 — a bill to allow citizens to know what corporations and wealthy donors are paying for the “independent expenditure” attack ads enabled by the 5-4 Citizens United ruling — the National Rifle Association (NRA) is warning Senators it will score the issue in its legislative scorecard for this Congress.

The NRA opposes the measure — arguing that its “provisions require organizations to turn membership and donor lists over to the government” and would unconstitutionally abridge the right of citizens “to speak and associate privately and anonymously.” The legislation would merely require groups that opt to run outside political ads to tell voters which donors funded those efforts. By setting up a separate bank account for independent political spending, a group like the NRA would be able to keep its membership list private and would need only disclose the large money donors paying for the group’s campaign ads. Far from being unconstitutional, this sort of disclosure was explicitly endorsed in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Citizens United majority opinion as “the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations.”

In other words, vulnerable Senators facing re-election may face secret-money attack ads should they back transparency for secret money attack ads.

More: NRA Warns Senators Not To Support Disclosure | ThinkProgress

Wow, an article from a liberal hack website.

Pretty lame.

Unlike most wingnut sites, it provides proof and live source links.

 

[Two Thumbs]

By Josh Israel

In a letter opposing the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 — a bill to allow citizens to know what corporations and wealthy donors are paying for the “independent expenditure” attack ads enabled by the 5-4 Citizens United ruling — the National Rifle Association (NRA) is warning Senators it will score the issue in its legislative scorecard for this Congress.

The NRA opposes the measure — arguing that its “provisions require organizations to turn membership and donor lists over to the government” and would unconstitutionally abridge the right of citizens “to speak and associate privately and anonymously.” The legislation would merely require groups that opt to run outside political ads to tell voters which donors funded those efforts. By setting up a separate bank account for independent political spending, a group like the NRA would be able to keep its membership list private and would need only disclose the large money donors paying for the group’s campaign ads. Far from being unconstitutional, this sort of disclosure was explicitly endorsed in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Citizens United majority opinion as “the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations.”

In other words, vulnerable Senators facing re-election may face secret-money attack ads should they back transparency for secret money attack ads.

More: NRA Warns Senators Not To Support Disclosure | ThinkProgress

That's a breach of privacy.

The NRA is correct not to support further killing of the Constitution.

I am not shocked that liberals don't care.

I would be shocked if a single one did, but sadly, none think for themselves.

 

[Lakhota]

Ain't it funny how things are only Constitutional when wingnuts agree with them...

 

[Charles_Main]

Ain't it funny how things are only Constitutional when wingnuts agree with them...

I make that same observation about left Extreme left and right. They are no Different. Especially in this place.

 

[tjvh]

I was a member of the NRA for about 30 years - until they got really crazy and ultra-political.

Did you ever ask yourself why a special interest group (the NRA) needs to fight tooth and nail to protect our citizens Freedoms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment? No... I didn't think so. If you couldn't figure it out in 30 years, I'd say there is no hope for you. By all means feel free to surrender your Constitutional Rights... But keep your filthy hands off of MINE.

 

[Lakhota]

I was a member of the NRA for about 30 years - until they got really crazy and ultra-political.

Did you ever ask yourself why a special interest group (the NRA) needs to fight tooth and nail to protect our citizens Freedoms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment? No... I didn't think so. If you couldn't figure it out in 30 years, I'd say there is no hope for you. By all means feel free to surrender your Constitutional Rights... But keep your filthy hands off of MINE.

I figured it out - they don't know when to stop. The NRA is a radical Conservative wingnut organization. Many of my outdoor friends also ended their membership.

 

[tjvh]

Ain't it funny how things are only Constitutional when wingnuts agree with them...

Ain't it funny how people like you are so quick to give up your Freedoms for the sake of your ideology, then demand others who disagree with your beliefs do the same... No... It isn't funny. It's disgraceful.

 

[tjvh]

I was a member of the NRA for about 30 years - until they got really crazy and ultra-political.

Did you ever ask yourself why a special interest group (the NRA) needs to fight tooth and nail to protect our citizens Freedoms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment? No... I didn't think so. If you couldn't figure it out in 30 years, I'd say there is no hope for you. By all means feel free to surrender your Constitutional Rights... But keep your filthy hands off of MINE.

I figured it out - they don't know when to stop. The NRA is a radical Conservative wingnut organization. Many of my outdoor friends also ended their membership.

Radical because they want to protect YOUR Freedoms... Whatever, nut-job.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I'm just glad they've got enough 'pull' to keep a few of those DC sluts in line.

 

[tjvh]

And what is going to happen when the UN proclaims that it trumps America's Second Amendment? nothing good, because I for one am not surrendering my Freedoms to a conglomerate of Nations who detest my country. United Nations Disarmament ...strengthening peace and security through disarmament

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By Josh Israel

In a letter opposing the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 — a bill to allow citizens to know what corporations and wealthy donors are paying for the “independent expenditure” attack ads enabled by the 5-4 Citizens United ruling — the National Rifle Association (NRA) is warning Senators it will score the issue in its legislative scorecard for this Congress.

The NRA opposes the measure — arguing that its “provisions require organizations to turn membership and donor lists over to the government” and would unconstitutionally abridge the right of citizens “to speak and associate privately and anonymously.” The legislation would merely require groups that opt to run outside political ads to tell voters which donors funded those efforts. By setting up a separate bank account for independent political spending, a group like the NRA would be able to keep its membership list private and would need only disclose the large money donors paying for the group’s campaign ads. Far from being unconstitutional, this sort of disclosure was explicitly endorsed in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Citizens United majority opinion as “the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations.”

In other words, vulnerable Senators facing re-election may face secret-money attack ads should they back transparency for secret money attack ads.

More: NRA Warns Senators Not To Support Disclosure | ThinkProgress

Nice spin on a stupid law.

 

[Lakhota]

Did you ever ask yourself why a special interest group (the NRA) needs to fight tooth and nail to protect our citizens Freedoms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment? No... I didn't think so. If you couldn't figure it out in 30 years, I'd say there is no hope for you. By all means feel free to surrender your Constitutional Rights... But keep your filthy hands off of MINE.

I figured it out - they don't know when to stop. The NRA is a radical Conservative wingnut organization. Many of my outdoor friends also ended their membership.

Radical because they want to protect YOUR Freedoms... Whatever, nut-job.

Radical for several reasons - including using scare tactics to keep the gun control boogeyman alive for financial reasons. It's even tied into the military industrial complex that Ike warned us about.

How do we know Obama is trying to take our guns? Because he says he isn't...