Sitting Duck Policy

On April 29, 2010, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. The bill is a direct response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (McCain- Feingold) – a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year. Simply put, the DISCLOSE Act will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by Citizens United.

This bill is designed to take away the influence of Tea party and other conservative groups in the upcoming November election.

An exemption has been carved out for the Labor Unions and other leftist advocacy groups. The NRA was also exempted so they would not oppose it. Roll Call Magazine reports today that they have carved out even deeper exemptions in order to assure passage and we believe it clearly shows the intent of the bill is to diminish the effectiveness of Tea party groups and other newer conservative advocacy groups.

I called Congressman Bishop and was assured by his staff that the Congressman opposes the DISCLOSE Act, which was reassuring.

I also emailed Christopher Cox, Executive Director of the NRA with the following:

I am an NRA Life Member, I oppose the “Disclose Act”, and even though organizations such as yourself are exempted, as a paying member I ask that you represent my stance and OPPOSE the Disclose Act.

My eldest son is a NRA Junior Life Member, as a paying member I ask that you represent my stance on his behalf and OPPOSE the Disclose Act.

My eldest daughter is a NRA Junior Life Member, as a paying member I ask that you represent my stance on her behalf and OPPOSE the Disclose Act.

I have a wife, two more sons and one more daughter that are NOT YET Life Members. If you do not OPPOSE the Disclose Act I will pursue Life Memberships in OTHER pro-2nd Amendment organizations for them.

Your timely response is appreciated.

Cordially,

Joe Levi, NRA Life Member

Christopher Cox, Executive Director of the NRA replied with the following:

I received your email regarding the NRA`s position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act”. Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you`ll allow me to provide the proper context.

The U.S. Supreme Court`s Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution. The NRA filed a strong brief in that case, which the Court specifically cited several times in its opinion. The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to reverse that victory and that`s why we told Congress we oppose it.

The NRA has never supported–nor would we ever support — any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong.

The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization. My job is to ensure they don`t apply to the NRA and our members. Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.

We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That`s easy to say–unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.

The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together. For example, we didn`t support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it backed amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President Obama`s stimulus bill. And we`ve been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible parking lots.

Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress`s unconstitutional attack on free speech. That`s a shame. If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you.

To which I replied:

Thank you for your response.

While I acknowledge that you don’t “support H.R. 5175″, you don’t oppose it, either. And while I respect that your job is to make sure H.R. 5175 doesn’t apply to the NRA or its members, I must respectfully disagree with you.

Using the same logic, I’d like to quote Friedrich Niemöller:

“When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.

“When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

“When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.

“When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn’t a Jew.

“When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”

If the NRA were smaller, H.R. 5175 would apply to you, and your members. The only reason it does not is because of your size.

H.R. 5175 is going after other organizations who are very much like the NRA… and the NRA is remaining silent. When “they” come for the NRA, who will stand beside us?

Cordially,

Joe Levi, NRA Life Member

I am awaiting a response.