Shameful and outrageous is indeed the right way to describe this.In a shameful and outrageous move, the NRA has pressured the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to exempt it -- and apparently only it -- from proposed legislation that would require corporations, unions, and advocacy and lobbying groups to reveal donations used to support political campaigns.
Under H.R. 5175, every other group or corporation would have to report the names of people who donate at least $600 to expenditures directed at or available for election activities. Every. Other. Group -- such as the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Gun Owners of America, the National Right-to-Life Committee, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Every group -- except the NRA.
To the NRA bosses, it's not just "the guys with the guns make the rules," but the guys with the undisclosed money sources make the rules -- particularly when everybody else's donors have to be disclosed. It's no longer just guns that they say will have to be pried from their "cold dead hands." It's their donor lists, too.
What's your opinion? Is the NRA getting away with too much? If the right to bear arms is such a wholesome and decent thing, why do its proponents have to resort to underhanded tactics to protect it? Why do gun advocates so often demand secrecy, no lists, no registration, no disclosure of any kind, the destruction of records is mandated by law, for crying out loud.
If guns are so good, wouldn't it work both ways? Wouldn't transparency and disclosure work in favor of those named? Wouldn't they be seen as honorable and patriotic? Why all the fear and hiding?
Why wouldn't the donors to the NRA be proud of the fact? Why is it necessary to legislate secrecy if freedom is what we're all seeking?
Does this sound like freedom to you?
Please leave a comment.
" If the right to bear arms is such a wholesome and decent thing, why do its proponents have to resort to underhanded tactics to protect it? Why do gun advocates so often demand secrecy, no lists, no registration, no disclosure of any kind, the destruction of records is mandated by law, for crying out loud."
ReplyDeleteYou could make the same argument about abortion. If abortion is such a good thing, then what's wrong with publishing information about people who get abortions?
It's an invasion privacy. That's what's wrong.
Plus the Brady Bunch has no room to complain since their e-mail list is up for sale, contrary to the fact they say on their website they won't sell your e-mail address.
They also conveniently ignore the fact that the NRA isn't the only organization given exemption. Maybe if they could get more than a roomful of contributing members, they would get exemption too.
"Shameful and outrageous is indeed the right way to describe this."
ReplyDeleteYou are right. Why would the Democrats propose or agree to this? Outrageous! Shame on them.
Actually, the good part to all of this is that the Democrat deal with the NRA may be the instrument to keep that stupid bill from seeing a vote.
Actually, the good part to all of this is that the Democrat deal with the NRA may be the instrument to keep that stupid bill from seeing a vote.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I won't give credit to the NRA for masterminding this, but it sure is a stroke of luck that it is turning out this way.
It's kind of funny that the TeaBaggers and the GOPers are always concerned about where Dems are getting their campaign monies. How many times have we heard the Dems are getting their monies from China or as a result of cocaine deals at the Mena Airport?
ReplyDeleteWell, the NRA is now saying they don't have to disclose who they get money from. My guess is their fellow AlQaeda terrorists.
--JadeGold
I have my own objections to this--not because the NRA's freedom of speech is protected, but because almost no one else's is.
ReplyDeleteThe good news is that it has Helmke and Henigan messing their diapers in foot-stomping fury--pure comedic gold.
What JadeGold said makes the most sense to me. Among the bigger contributors there must be some interesting names. A lot of effort has been undertaken to keep them secret.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't transparency and disclosure work in favor of those named?
ReplyDeleteNo, especially since anti-gunners so often demonstrate a propensity towards violence.
Besides, it's none of your damn business (or that of Congress) who I choose to donate my money to. It's a blatant invasion of privacy being used by the Dems as a means of quelling free speech & dissent.
Nice to see your contempt for the
1st and 4th Amendments MikeB.
No, especially since anti-gunners so often demonstrate a propensity towards violence.
ReplyDeleteMike W got hold of some of Hoffmmann's meds.
Yes, Mikey W, we do have a right to know where political campaigns are getting their money. Do you seriously want some foreign country dumping a hundred million into a campaign--and not know about it? That kind of money would influence a Presidential campaign. Lesser amounts could buy congessional seats.
--JadeGold
mikeb: What JadeGold said makes the most sense to me. Among the bigger contributors there must be some interesting names.
ReplyDeleteHey mikeb: Why don't you take a guess? I won't hold it against you if you turn out to be wrong -- I'm just curious as to what you are thinking of.
Can you give us an actual example of someone "among the bigger contributors" who you think might have an "interesting name"?
Someone you really think it might be -- not JadeGold nonsense.
It's not nonsense. Transparency in donor contributions is what legitimate businesspeople prefer.
ReplyDeleteSorry to disappoint but I'm not going to guess who might be on that list. It would be interesting, though.
mikeb: "It's not nonsense."
ReplyDeleteJadeGold: "Well, the NRA is now saying they don't have to disclose who they get money from. My guess is their fellow AlQaeda terrorists."
mikeb: "Sorry to disappoint but I'm not going to guess who might be on that list.".
I thought that you might say that.
So much better to say "Among the bigger contributors there must be some interesting names." That way, you can insinuate something sinister without having to give an actual name that makes you look silly.
Hey--maybe I know why the Brady Campaign is so upset about not getting their own exemption. If they have to give up their donor list they're gonna have trouble selling it (which they said they wouldn't do):
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center will not sell your name or e-mail address to spammers or share it with unaffiliated groups.