|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 15, 2010, 12:42 PM | #1 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
How powerful is the NRA politically?
So powerful that the latest campaign finance legislation seeking to change the law after Citizens United just carved out a specific exception to the law to avoid NRA opposition.
That's right - with a Democratic majority House and Senate and a former Joyce Foundation board member as President, they gave the NRA a pass on campaign finance reform to avoid that fight with the NRA. Of course, the NRAs real power comes from its members; but this is a good example of how the day-in, day-out work of those members over the past 10 years has changed politics. |
June 15, 2010, 12:53 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,380
|
Linky links to articles on the subject?
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
June 15, 2010, 01:19 PM | #3 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38500.html (Note link has pop-up ads)
Quote:
|
|
June 15, 2010, 01:32 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Bill Clinton blamed the NRA for the dems losing control of the House during his presidency.
|
June 15, 2010, 01:43 PM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,380
|
And Al Gore blamed NRA in large part for his losing the 2000 presidential election.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
June 15, 2010, 03:59 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,425
|
I can't believe that you guys are supporting the NRA ... after the huge battle to get McCain-Feingold overturned, the NRA is now selling out dozens of organizations that are not their size or longevity in order to be exempt from the law the Dems are concocting to gut the court decision!! I've been a member of the NRA for years, but their decision to get into bed with gun-hating liberals sticks in my craw. This is NOT a good thing. There comes a time when you have to stand by your beliefs, and that's NOT what the NRA is doing here, at least in my humble opinion.
__________________
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus |
June 15, 2010, 04:08 PM | #7 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
The NRA is a single issue organization - and that issue is the Second Amendment, not the First. The only reason the NRA opposed McCain-Feingold was because it restricted their ability to support the Second Amendment. This new legislation specifically exempts the NRA, so it doesn't have that problem.
There is lots of legislation that I think is a bad idea and I do not want to see pass; however, that doesn't mean I want to see the NRA get involved in everyone of those fights. I want the NRA to develop a broad base of support for the Second Amendment - and it cannot do that if it is busy getting involved in every single piece of legislation. Quote:
Quote:
The NRA is a single-issue organization for a good reason. |
||
June 15, 2010, 05:07 PM | #8 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,380
|
"There comes a time when you have to stand by your beliefs, and that's NOT what the NRA is doing here, at least in my humble opinion."
Your mean YOUR beliefs, as in you, the person, and what you believe? I certainly can't see you referring to NRA's beliefs, which are ONLY support of the right of all law-abiding Americans to own and use firearms for sport and defense. That's the only belief that NRA has, and only belief that it should have. This action furthers NRA's ability to protect and defend the rights of gunowners everywhere.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
June 15, 2010, 06:07 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
The GOA is uncharacteristically restrained in their message on this topic:
Quote:
|
|
June 15, 2010, 06:27 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 10, 2002
Posts: 2,108
|
GOA mentions NRA at least 17 times in that article....too bad they can't stand on their own accomplishments.
|
June 15, 2010, 09:30 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY
Posts: 507
|
A few thoughts.
Gun laws in the USA would not be as friendly to the gun owner if the NRA was not around. We can look at their mistakes (future and past) but we have to give them credit. Can you imagine what the state of concealed carry would be if the NRA had not fought for the right to carry concealed. And, even though the congress has a democratic majority, least we forget there are a number of 'blue dog' democrats who are as gun friendly as republicans. |
June 15, 2010, 10:03 PM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Well put, RETG.
Quote:
The NRA is capable of striking fear into the hearts of legislators. Despite a modest lobbying budget, they are still the 800lb gorilla in this fight.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
June 16, 2010, 06:41 AM | #13 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
June 16, 2010, 07:17 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
|
|
June 16, 2010, 07:26 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
Considering the NRA's initial reaction to the Parker/Heller matter, I'd say we need the non-mainstream groups at least as much as we need the NRA. |
|
June 16, 2010, 08:19 AM | #16 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
No, it was never a Second Amendment issue. It was a First Amendment issue. The NRA's ability to advocate for the Second was limited by campaign finance legislation. The new legislation doesn't do that because the NRA is exempted. It may limit other, smaller RKBA groups who don't have the political power of the NRA; but what does the NRA "owe" to those groups?
If the NRA opposes the legislation, then: 1. They irritate the Dem leadership which currently has large majorities in both houses. 2. They lose their exemption - meaning that if the legislation passes anyway they will be required to give up lobbying within 90 days of an election or disclose their membership list. So what is in the best interest of the NRA membership? |
June 16, 2010, 08:23 AM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
|
|
June 16, 2010, 08:52 AM | #18 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...Q4N2E3YTM1MmM= Quote:
Although I have no hard data to back this up, I suspect that this will also exempt some prominent left-wing organizations, specifically member-supported environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation. Furthermore, I foresee groups that don't quite qualify for the exemption making a push to get themselves qualified. (For instance, an organization might try to increase its membership from ~800,000 to the magic 1 million mark by creating a "Junior Membership" that costs $5 instead of the normal $30 and doesn't include the magazine subscription.) Future attempts to close the "loophole" will probably be politically difficult because the effort will be opposed on both sides of the aisle.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
June 16, 2010, 09:47 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 13, 2006
Location: Hayden, ID
Posts: 375
|
From Chris Cox, ILA Director
I received this via my association with the Members' Councils here in California:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=5888 NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox's Letter to Members of Congress on H.R. 5175, the Disclose Act Thursday, June 10, 2010 http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/DiscloseAct52710.pdf May 26, 2010 Dear Member of Congress: I am writing to express the National Rifle Association's strong concerns with H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, as well as our opposition to this bill in its current form. It is our sincere hope that these concerns will be addressed as this legislation is considered by the full House. Earlier this year, in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down the ban on certain political speech by nonprofit membership associations such as the NRA. In an attempt to characterize that ruling as something other than a vindication of the free speech and associational rights of millions of individual American citizens, H.R. 5175 attempts to reverse that decision. Under the First Amendment, as recognized in a long line of Supreme Court cases, citizens have the right to speak and associate privately and anonymously. H.R. 5175, however, would require the NRA to turn our membership and donor lists over to the government and to disclose top donors on political advertisements. The bill would empower the Federal Election Commission to require the NRA to reveal private, internal discussions with our four million members about political communications. This unnecessary and burdensome requirement would leave it in the hands of government officials to make a determination about the type and amount of speech that would trigger potential criminal penalties. H.R. 5175 creates a series of byzantine disclosure requirements that have the obvious effect of intimidating speech. The bill, for example, requires "top-five funder" disclosures on TV ads that mention candidates for federal office from 90 days prior to a primary election through the general election; "top-two funder" disclosure on similar radio ads during that period; "significant funder" and "top-five funder" disclosures on similar mass mailings during that period; and "significant funder" disclosure for similar "robocalls" during that period. Internet communications are covered if placed for a fee on another website, such as the use of banner ads that mention candidates for federal office. Even worse, no exceptions are included for organizations communicating with their members. This is far worse than current law and would severely restrict the various ways that the NRA communicates with our members and like-minded individuals. While there are some groups that have run ads and attempted to hide their identities, the NRA isn't one of them. The NRA has been in existence since 1871. Our four million members across the country contribute for the purpose of speaking during elections and participating in the political process. When the NRA runs ads, we clearly and proudly put our name on them. Indeed, that's what our members expect us to do. There is no reason to include the NRA in overly burdensome disclosure and reporting requirements that are supposedly aimed at so-called "shadow" groups. On the issue of reporting requirements, the bill mandates that the NRA electronically file all reports with the FEC within 24 hours of each expenditure. Within 24 hours of FEC posting of the reports, the NRA would be required to put a hyperlink on our website to the exact page on which the reports appear on the FEC's website - and keep that link: active for at least one year following the date of the general election. Independent Expenditure reports would have to disclose all individuals who donate $600 or more to the NRA during the reporting period and Electioneering Communication reports would have to disclose all individuals who donate $1,000 or more to the NRA during the reporting period. There are literally thousands of NRA donors who would meet those thresholds, so these requirements would create a significant and unwarranted burden. Some have argued that under the bill, all the NRA would have to do to avoid disclosing our $600 or $1,000 level donors is to create a "Campaign-Related Activity Account." Were we to set up such an account, however, we would be precluded from transferring more than $10,000 from our general treasury to the account; all individual donors to that account would have to specifically designate their contributions in that manner and would have to limit their contributions to $9,999; the burdensome disclosure requirements for ads, mailings and robocalls would still apply; and the NRA would be prohibited from spending money on election activity from any other source - including the NRA's Political Victory Fund (our PAC). In sum, this provision is completely unworkable. Unfortunately, H.R. 5175 attacks nearly all of the NRA's political speech by creating an arbitrary patchwork of unprecedented reporting and disclosure requirements. Under the bill, the NRA would have to track the political priorities of each of our individual members - all four million of them. The cost of complying with these requirements would be immense and significantly restrict our ability to speak. As noted above, there is no legitimate reason to include the NRA in H.R. 5175's overly burdensome disclosure and reporting requirements. Therefore, we will continue to work with members from both parties to address these issues. Should our concerns not be resolved - and to date, they have not been - the NRA will have no choice but to oppose passage of this legislation. Sincerely, Chris W. Cox Executive Director
__________________
[SIZE="3"][SIZE="2"]Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight, he'll just kill you. "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?"- Benjamin Franklin |
June 16, 2010, 11:18 AM | #20 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
If the NRA has a sure thing, should they risk it? And what level of certainty should they have before they do? |
|
June 16, 2010, 01:18 PM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: July 20, 2001
Posts: 38
|
A sure thing...
The NRA is negotiating a "sure thing" with the same people that had the IRS audit them throughout most of the 90s. The same people that gave us Brady, Lautenberg and the AWB. The same people that wanted to leave the trial lawyers the capacity to sue the gun industry out of existence.
The only "sure thing" here is that the NRA is doing what they accused the anti's of doing...picking and choosing which of the Bill of Rights they'll support. All that need be done here is to say, "no", and then have the membership lean on their representatives to vote "no". And here's a question...would the Dems have offered this deal to the NRA if they thought they could have passed this latest abomination in the face of their opposition? No. This is classic "divide and conquer". The NRA is negotiating to be eaten last. EDITED: And if campaign finance reform is the goal, why does the goverment always have to have MORE power? Here's some reform...any citizen or US corporation can donate as much as they want to whomever they want. But every dime has to be disclosed within 24 hours. Every. Dime. This, as opposed to yet another byzantine set of rules, limits, exceptions, etc. Freedom. How's that for a concept?
__________________
I am armed against those that would disarm me. |
June 16, 2010, 01:21 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
The little GOA has accomplished little in their short life span. What they have done is whine, caterwaul and lie about the NRA in an attempt to get folks to quit the NRA. |
|
June 16, 2010, 01:52 PM | #23 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,380
|
"GOA mentions NRA at least 17 times in that article....too bad they can't stand on their own accomplishments."
As far as I can tell, yelling about NRA and asking for money (to continue to yell about NRA?) are the only things GOA have ever accomplished.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
June 16, 2010, 02:33 PM | #24 |
Member
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Posts: 53
|
H.r. 5175, the disclose act
Yea, I just found out about this "H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT"!!!!
It kind of makes me MAD!!! I just joined the NRA last November for a year! Should I send them a nasty e-mail or just forgot it? |
June 16, 2010, 03:07 PM | #25 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
IF it is a party discipline vote AND the Dems can hold that line, then there is no question that it is passing. Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|