Thank the NRA for the Death of 'Disclose'

American Thinker ^ | October 07, 2010 | Brad O'Leary

[neverdem]

Now that the free speech-killing Disclose Act has yet again failed to go anywhere in the Senate, it's time to set the record straight on whom we have to thank for its rightful death: the National Rifle Association of America. Yes, the same group miscast to so many people by bloggers and drive-by journalists as the villain in this drama.

First, a little history is in order.  ]In 2002, the NRA learned what so many Tea Party activists already know: you can't trust the political establishment. When campaign finance "reform" passed Congress that year, Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House. Republican Party leaders assured the NRA and other pro-free speech groups that there was no reason to worry, because even if the bill passed, it would surely be vetoed by a Republican president. After the bill passed and the Republican president failed to veto it, the NRA and other groups were again told not to worry, as it would be immediately declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. No such luck.

When the Supreme Court took a step for free speech earlier this year -- affirming the First Amendment rights of corporations and organizations in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling -- Democrats saw an opportunity to pass another draconian, anti-free speech bill dubbed the "Disclose Act."

The Democrat-led House and Senate put forth similar versions of the Disclose Act which had already been approved by the White House. Democratic leaders in Congress felt they had the votes they needed to avoid a filibuster and fast-track the bill into law.

But a funny thing happened on the way to dictatorship as 36 Democrats, who didn't want to run for reelection with the NRA hammering them for stripping gun owners of their right to free speech, got nervous.

Just as the bill was to be rammed through the House and Senate, these Democratic congressmen revolted and forced their leadership to carve out an exemption for the NRA. This sparked a feud between the left and right wings of the Democratic Party and forced a second compromise bill in the House that gutted the bill even more -- a compromise that included an exemption for large political membership groups from both the left and right, and with members in all fifty states.

The Senate, on the other hand, stuck with its original version of the bill, which the NRA continued to campaign against. The right and left factions within the Democratic Party continued to argue, and no compromise bill could be agreed upon.

So instead of a unified process whereby both houses of Congress would pass the Disclose Act, the NRA's action caused strife, argument, and disarray. What was supposed to be a smooth passage and bill-signing ceremony in May didn't occur. 

The House bill, which included the exemption, didn't pass until June, and it was now very different from the Senate's version of the bill. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had his work cut out for him. Reid's first attempt at a cloture vote failed in July. And now his second attempt over two months later has fallen dead as well.  Even if it had succeeded, it would have been different from the House bill, and so more debate would have ensued.

Make no mistake: The so-called "NRA exemption" was the bump in the track that stopped the free speech-killing bullet train from speeding through the House and Senate en route to being signed into law by a willing president.

Just don't expect the same people who write about the legislative process for a living (without bothering to understand it) to now be writing mea culpas to the NRA. Though they certainly should.

Brad O'Leary is publisher of The O'Leary Report, a bestselling author, and a former NBC Westwood One talk show host. To see more, go to www.olearyreport.com. To interview Brad, contact Shawna Shriner at (703) 272-1500 or ShawnaS@thepm-group.com.

[neverdem]

Whether the NRA asked for its exemption, or it was initiated by Congress critters on their own, either way the NRA was a winner. If the worst came to be, the NRA had its exemption. As it worked out, it proved to be a poison pill, and Disclose is not a law!

[This Just In]

Two steps forward, three steps back.

Any support for any liberal is an endorsement of the enemy.

[Joe Brower]

See what I mean?

[italianquaker]

NRA support for rats is a support for the jackass....

[Joe Brower]

[mrmeyer]

What are the chances of it coming up during the lame duck session? If Pelosi is no longer speaker come January and Reid is no longer a senator...

[Secret Agent Man]

The writer is myopic in that he claims the NRA learned it can’t trust ‘the establishment’.

I’ve got quotes from Chris Cox talking about how “very incumbent friendly” the NRA is when explaining why they back democrats. I’ve got other FR NRA-niacs talking about how when “both candidates are ‘equal’, we back the incumbent.” Again in the context of explaining why they back democrats.

If you are backing a democrat and they keep enough numbers to stay in control of the House and Senate, and keep Pelosi and Reid in power and keep the chairmanships in democrat control, that is HARDLY an EQUAL CHOICE.

ANd because of this myopic, zero-tolerance mentality policy that would be great if they just applied it to conservative incumbents, it proves they are totally comfortable supporting the establishment.

[This Just In]

I keep hearing them say, “...but these liberals are pro gun”. Yeah, like Harry Reid. He’s a real champion of Conservative principles. /s

[OKSooner]

Well, maybe not everyone agrees but I'm willing to give the NRA credit for a smooth Machiavellian move on this one.

Doesn't mean they've earned my membership back - that won't happen while Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox are still around - but most of us need to be fair about all this stuff all the time, don't we?

[bereanway]

The House bill, which included the exemption, didn’t pass until June, and it was now very different from the Senate’s version of the bill. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had his work cut out for him. Reid’s first attempt at a cloture vote failed in July. And now his second attempt over two months later has fallen dead as well.””

And when did the NRA endorsement for Angle come down? I must have missed it.

[Joe Brower]

"most of us need to be fair about all this stuff all the time, don't we?"

One would think. But lately it seems like a lot of folks here are ready to toss the NRA off a cliff, on 'principle'.

I'm all for having principles, and have some big ones of my own, but I don't see those 'principles' doing a whole lot of good when we're all sitting in the gulag.

Politics is an ugly game, complicated and dirty, and beyond the comprehension of a lot of folks here. Of course, that doesn't keep them from screaming "Off with their heads!" at every opportunity.

[Blennos]

Not in the mood right now to thank the NRA for anything. They have been supporting dem candidates (over 50 at last count I think) and doing our country a disservice. They have their own agenda which does not coincide with the conservative agenda. I have let my membership lapse and will never rejoin.

[Howie66]

I would much rather “Thank” the NRA for helping to defeat the party of RATs.

However, the NRA seems hell bent on allowing the party of RATs to stay in power. They support RATs where they should not and fail to support conservatives that would be more protective of our constitutional rights.

As such, I have a major problem with the NRA that seems to be irreconcilable.

[JoenTX]

The thing is the NRA wasn’t employing any type of grand scheming to save free speech and the Republic from the Dems.....they were throwing lock, stock, and barrel in with them to quell free speech for a political back scratching of their own. That it didn’t (yet) get through is not some reason to pat the NRA on the back because they were fully prepared and comfortable with it doing so once they got theirs.

Yes, the NRA has gotten too comfy with the “establishment” without a doubt. The leadership has been in place too long. They’ve moved from being a “single issue” organization to a “single right” entity.......all other rights are now seemingly on the table for them so long as they get a friendly deal to squawk to their members about. Sickening it has become........

[Errant]

Make no mistake: The so-called "NRA exemption" was the bump in the track that stopped the free speech-killing bullet train

What a bunch of malarkey... The dumb as a "box of rocks" NRA leadership cost the NRA prestige and members by slumming with the Democrats on Disclose.

If there is one iota of truth in this article it is the fact that Disclose failed to pass the Senate because the NRA found the backbone to stand against it. The NRA leadership could have accomplished the same with the Congress if they had opposed the bill regardless of the exemption. And in the process of doing so, the NRA would have gained honor and paying members.

[This Just In]

Must be nice from that lofty seat you’re perched on.

It is rather ironic that you’ll attack FReepers personallly by accusing some of being devoid of comprehension,

“... beyond the comprehension of a lot of folks here.”

and dismissing our position while claiming that you’re the more “intelligent” NRA supporter.

shovel your manure somewhere else. There are a number of us whom supported the NRA for years, but I guess blind faith isn’t asking too much.

Joe Brower said:

“Of course, that doesn’t keep them from screaming “Off with their heads!” at every opportunity.”

You win the “Mr. Hyperbole” Award. We are the same individuals whom supported the NRA when they were in the right. I find it rather interesting, if not revealing, that you would level ad hominem attacks at Freepers who would not only disagree with your blind faith, but would accuse us of being idiots.

Perhaps you’re one of those liberals within the organization. I don’t know, but I’m thankful that there are a few former NRA members out there willing to task the organization to task for endorsing the enemy.

[Da Bilge Troll]

So, let me get this straight. . . When the NRA threw its membership under the bus, this was what they intended all along?

Makes perfect sense. . . NOT!

[editor-surveyor]

The bill will return in its ugliest form after the November election.
.

[Qbert]

There’s quite a bit of spin here, unfortunately...

Would the ‘clean’ bill without the exemption really have sailed smoothly through the Senate, with Snowe, Collins and others voting against their best interests? (Even liberal-leaning Republicans benefit greatly from corporate contributions, remember). There would have been immense pressure on them from their party to vote no, as well. So, it’s just pure speculation to say otherwise.

Further, in the alternative, would the House compromise bill with the NRA exemption have passed in the Senate? The writer seems to imply so, but he skates over the fact that, despite the Libs and Obama desperately wanting Disclose, this would have meant that a number of anti-gun Libs in the Senate would have had to vote for a NRA exemption. When you consider the heat that they would have faced from the progressives, it seems unlikely they would have garnered the votes for this.

[Erik Latranyi]

The NRA (and some of us) realize that politics is a dirty, messy, sausage-making business.

It is not for the pure....never was....never will be.