Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Watchdog Group Urges Congress To Pass DISCLOSE Act

June 17, 2010 by  

Watchdog group urges Congress to pass DISCLOSE Act Last January the Supreme Court ruled that campaign finance laws should be relaxed to reflect constitutional rights to free speech by allowing businesses, unions and advocacy groups to air political ads. It has been criticized by both Republicans and Democrats, and has been subject to both legal and legislative challenges.

Among the latter is the DISCLOSE Act —introduced by Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Ron Wyden (D-Oreg.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)—which would impose new disclosure requirements on organizations that spend money on political advocacy campaigns.

However, it has run into trouble in the House of Representatives as a result of the opposition from such diverse interest groups as the National Rifle Association and the AFL-CIO. According to The Washington Post, they believe the bill would require them to identify small donors as well.

As the prospects of the bill passing this year are receding,—a non profit organization—has launched a campaign to persuade Congress to revive the legislation, which it says is "meant to protect public elections and the votes of millions of Americans."

"[We need to] mitigate the corrosive effects of the Supreme Court’s decision allowing unlimited secret funding of elections by corporations," the organization said in a statement. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19836665-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Watchdog Group Urges Congress To Pass DISCLOSE Act”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Raggs

    The NRA has jumped in bed with the democrats on this one.
    You can read this on the wall street journal.

    I am a lifetime member of the NRA but I’m having second thoughts on thier agenda… It seems to me they would stand to uphold ANY and ALL of our constitutional rights. It is obvious we have no one in the white house that has been sworn to protect our rights interested in doing so.

    • Kinetic1

      A group of Democrats propose a bill to require disclosure, the NRA says no and from this you get the NRA in bed with the Democrats? A little more digging and it is clear that it is not the NRA giving in to the Democrat’s agenda, but the Democrats in the house who have caved to appease the NRA. I’m not surprised that the NRA is fighting to keep from being exposed, but once again I am appalled at how easily the Democratic lead house is convinced to give up. I was no fan of Bush, but I must say that he and the Republican controlled congress had no problem lining up their ranks and pushing through whatever he wanted. What good is having a majority if all you do is role over?

      • JC

        The NRA acted in its own (endorsing Reid) interests and threw every other political advocacy group under the bus. I ran my NRA card through the shredder last night.

      • DaveH

        As usual, a kneejerk reaction from Kinetic. The NRA has indeed sold out our freedom for a promise of immunity for their organization:

      • Raggs

        kinetic…I suggest you take a long hard look at the situation..

        The NRA has sold out to the democrats…
        If you had any sence you would research things before posting nonsence remarks.

        Furthemore I will resign my membership with them!

        • Kinetic1

          I understand that you feel that the NRA has sold out, but it was the Dems who have allowed it. La Pierre expressed he concerns with the bill and threatened to oppose it. It seems your issue is with his decision to stay out of the way as long as the NRA is excluded from the bill. The result of his actions is a blanket exclusion for all large groups (like the big bad AFL CIO) while leaving small groups and corporations in the cross hairs.

          Bottom line, the Dems rolled over to keep the NRA from causing problems. Wayne La Pierre earned his reported $1 million dollar a year pay day by finding a a guaranteed way to protect NRA members from this law. He didn’t so much sell out to the Dems as he did sell out anyone who was not a member of the NRA (though even some of the members will feel dirty by this action.)

          • DaveH

            That’s correct, Kinetic, but any organization with principles would insist that a bad law not be passed at all whether they are excluded or not.

      • JC

        I think the NRA just signed its own death warrant.
        I wonder what that costs?

        • DaveH

          Ever since I can remember, the NRA has been milktoast. For a real Gun Rights Organization that fights hard for our rights try the Gun Owners of America (

          • JC

            LOL Where do you think I heard about the NRA shenanigans? ;)

          • DaveH

            I love my fellow Libertarians.

      • Airangel

        from National Assoc for Gun Rights;

        Grassroots outrage over the NRA’s sickening attempt to cozy up to anti-gun Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi is slowing down the bill.

        Today, Forbes ( )is reporting that Democrats are feeling the heat over their devils’ pact with the NRA.

        Until this week, the DISCLOSE Act appeared doomed, but the NRA struck a deal with anti-gunners Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer (the Senate sponsor) and Harry Reid. In exchange for exemptions from the bill’s outrageous and expensive disclosure requirements, the NRA now tacitly supports the anti-free speech DISLCOSE Act
        This sell-out is so bad that even NRA board members are now calling it for what it is: a vile inside deal.

        NRA Board Member Cleta Mitchell told today’s Washington Post: “This is not just ‘disclosure.’ It is a scheme hatched by political insiders to eradicate disfavored speech. There is no room under the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with the NRA or anyone else.”

        We may have temporarily stalled the onslaught against our rights, but the battle is far from over.

        If we ease up now, the anti-gun Democrats and their toadies in the NRA will quietly push the DISCLOSE Act through Congress and silence your First Amendment right to defend your Second Amendment rights.

        Here’s what you can do to help:

        1.Call your Congressman and your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121. Demand that they publicly oppose the anti-free speech DISCLOSE Act (H.R.5175)

        2.Call the NRA at (800) 672-3888 and tell them to stop pandering to liberals. Tell them to denounce the DISCLOSE ACT for what it is, an attack on both our First and Second Amendment rights.

    • William

      will not renew my membership in the nra,

    • JeffH

      Before everybody jumps on the NRA…read this statement which I think explains their position clearly.

      Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act
      Thursday, June 17, 2010

      We appreciate some NRA members’ concerns about our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.” Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts.

      We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26.

      read the letter:

      • DaveH

        From the NRA letter:
        “As noted above, there is no legitimate reason to include the NRA in H.R. 5175′s overly burdensome disclosure and reporting requirements.”

        Sure sounds to me like they are saying if they are excluded they will shut up.

        • DaveH

          If the NRA was really interested in our freedoms they wouldn’t go anywhere near politicians like Harry Reid whether he has supported some gun rights or not.

      • JC

        Jeff I respect your views on this and pretty much everything else.
        But the devil is in the details. “(as introduced)” is one of those details. What changes were made to get the NRA on board?
        And why would the NRA agree to not oppose the bill? It’s an anti-American invasion of the right to privacy even if the NRA did get itself exempted.
        It’s a “brown shirt” style scare tactic to try and shut down the smaller outlets of political activism and the NRA should totally oppose it on principle alone.
        Let alone actually do a spread in American Rifleman cavorting about with Harry “Cap and Tax” Reid.

        I just can’t get my head around why I should continue to support them, sorry.

        • JeffH

          JC,duly noted.

    • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Randy

      Corporations? What about Unions? How about making Unions take a vote of their members and distribute their campaign funds according to the percentages of their vote. Include this in the Bill and you lose all the Democratic support, for this would seem to fair for everyone, and the Democrats want only what will benefit them. Thats why their aren’t any Republicans backing this Bill, and the Democrats received more corporate donations this last elction than the Republicans, but after they’ve messed up the economy so badly, they see the hand writing on the wall. Corporations now know they need Republicans to bring the economy around and stop this Government take-over of private business. The Corporations also know that we can no longer afford the business exodus from this country because of excessive Government regulations and Union extortion. If those two problems aren’t corrected soon, there won’t be enough industry to support the jobs needed to keep this nation the greatest consumer country in the world as well as what we were once, the greatest production country in the world. The Democrats like to scold us about using 20% of the worlds energy, but fail to mention that we were also producing 40% of the worlds agriculture and industrial products. But not since excessive Government regulations and Union extortion has driven the majority of our industry to other countries where they are allowed to make a profit and don’t have to support those who want to live off of Government hand-outs. The Goverment and Unions have destroyed the independence of the American citizen and worker.

  • Mondovibe

    Great post! It’s time to reign in the personhood and $= free speech rights of the corporatocracy w/global tentacles, so they can stop buying our reps and corrupting our democratic process for “We the People”. Also see:

  • Mondovibe

    FYI: “The AFL-CIO supports a system of campaign finance regulation that promotes democratic participation in elections by individuals and their associations; protects legitimate independent speech rights; offers public financing to candidates while firmly regulating contributions to them; and guarantees effective disclosure of who is paying for what.”

    For Information Call: (202) 637-5018

  • Bob Wire

    What reason worthy enough to excused one special interest over another?

    Makes little sense, unless I’m not privileged to all the facts and that’s whats attempting to be denied.

    What’s obvious is it’s all of Capitol Hill and “special interest” that’s up to ‘stink works” and not just the White House as you suggest.

  • s c

    A basic formula in dealing with politicians says to put your trust in those who deliver positive, constructive results. Anyone else [Schumer, Feingold, Wyden, Bayh, Franken, Obummer, Motormouth Biden, Pelooney, Waxman, Durbin, most unions, the ACLU and the rest of the predictable losers] is to be shunned and publicly ridiculed.
    It pays to separate money and politics as much as possible. Politicians can’t be trusted, and a constant influx of new faces will give budding career criminals reasons to get a real job and keep their sorry asses out of Washington.
    Career politicians=career criminals=BAD government.
    It’s a hard lesson to learn and accept, but it’s TRUE. Deal with it. SOLVE IT!

    • TIME

      SC, Man you hit that one dead center all the way. Great post.

  • DaveH

    There is only one real solution to this – shrink the size and power of government dramatically. Then the special interests will have little reason to buy the politicians or the voters.

    There is only one political party principled enough to achieve that goal. That is the Libertarian Party. For Individual Freedom, Personal Responsibility, Free Markets, and Limited Government, Vote Libertarian:

    Watch John Stossel and Judge Napolitano on Fox Business Network to see our concepts explained.

  • mehoward

    There ought to be a fund that supports a candidate who is qualified to
    run. They should all start out with the same amount of money and let the best candidate win. This would also show which candidate will be frugal and knows how to handle money, Lord knows we need these kind of people in congress. I don’t think any company or any union should be able to put in millions of dollars to get someone elected so that thc
    candidate will be beholden to them. mehpensacola,fl

    • Raggs

      I think that is just it… The lobbist are ALL unions and that spells disaster for the common man.

      No election will ever be “FOR THE PEOPLE” and “BY THE PEOPLE”.
      Oh and speaking of that a NY judge passed a law to grant a 6 count vote to every “minority” vote. so in other words if your an illegal or minority your vote counts six times.

      Talk about a foul smell, We should demand this judge to be thrown off of the bench!!!!

      • JC

        If that’s true (can you post a reference?) That’s one New York Judge
        who should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a mule.

        • Raggs

          YES I can and I will post a link!

        • Raggs

          Read the link….

          one minority gets counted six times.

          • Kinetic1

            Consider your source. When an article is written with this much derision and anger, you know something is wrong. This AP report should clear things up.

          • Kinetic1

            Just to make certain that you don’t think of me as unfair, I should point out the the American Thinker article did say that it was 6 votes per voter, but that was in paragraph 6. Right up at the top in paragraph one the author wrote “one (minority) man, six votes”. I guess this is what you latched on to, and I admit that I had to re-read the article because it stuck in my mind as well. Maybe that was the idea?

          • DaveH

            You are right, 6 votes per voter, but the question is “does a judge have the power to order such a thing?”. I think he’s been watching too much “Dancing with the Stars”.
            I think it might be perfectly legal for an organization to make such rules for their voting system, but I don’t think a judge has a right to make his own rules. What happened to our separation of powers?

          • Kinetic1

            That I can’t answer. It’s a strange system and while it is fair in the sense that everyone gets the same number of votes, it seems likely to be a recipe for fraud and corruption. I hope we hear some more of the details behind this.

      • Kinetic1

        This is an amazing story, and would be even more unbelievable if your facts were correct. Now I don’t understand why the feds got mixed up in this, but they did. They told the town that something had to be done, so the idea of 6 votes per person was a suggestion made by the town council. It is not 6 votes for Hispanics only, it’s 6 votes per voter, period. The idea was that, just like “Dancing With the Stars” you could spread your votes out among the candidates you think are best. Only trust one council member, give him all 6. You have always liked John Smith and your afraid he will loose if you give Hector Ramirez a chance? Give them each 3 votes. The system also opens the door for more independent candidates to run, so that might appeal to some of you.

        Forums were held to explain the system. I wish I could have been at one because, even after looking into the idea it doesn’t sit well with me.

    • DaveH

      So who would control that fund? Government of course. You don’t see a conflict of interest in that? I, for one, don’t want my tax money going to support candidates who I don’t approve.
      But the biggest problem is that it takes an immense amount of campaign money for a challenger to get enough recognition to unseat an incumbent. The incumbents would love that.
      And finally, just because some rich cats put up a favorable ad on a candidate, are you somehow forced to vote for that person?

  • Ellen

    Raggs I hear about this NY Judge early this morning on radio, I AGREE THROW HIM OUT & OFF the Bar stool. He throw us all under the bus. You can see why people begin to think, “Why should I Vote, some idiot will come in and my Vote will not count anyway.” Sad, this needs to stop.

  • jr bob

    what do you expect when you support thugs and evil people, like poloticians, union bosses {they are almost allways in bed with politicians. The people need to wake up and vote all the bums out. in fact we should vote for libertertarians. that will put a real shock in washington. in fact i think that the demopublicans would have heart failure and we would have to have another election to replace the ones who were not up for relection. and we would have a clean house who would not be able to blame anyone anymore. then maybe we would get some good results for the people.

  • Raggs

    Just so some of you will find this link easyier.

  • Raggs

    Will the last person leaving the Constitutional Republic that was the United States of America please turn out the lights.

  • JeffH

    JeffH says:
    June 17, 2010 at 11:28 am
    Before everybody jumps on the NRA…read this statement which I think explains their position clearly.

    Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act
    Thursday, June 17, 2010

    We appreciate some NRA members’ concerns about our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.” Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts.

    We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26.

    read the letter:

    • Raggs

      Look Jeff.

      Can I put this plain and simple to you?

      Anytime the NRA is willing to support a “government” program there is sure to be a loser.
      As you stated (as introduced)or as in this case refined.

      Maybe you just don’t get it….
      I have had all I can stand with the government intervention into my personal lifestyle…. Regardless of what clock it comes in as!
      And for the NRA to mingle with the snakes is appauling to come to a conclusion that the NRA knows best for me.

      The NRA should promote freedom not sell out.
      The NRA needs to say NO not only that but HELL NO!

    • JeffH

      I just think it’s important to know the facts rather than letting emotion cloud them.

      NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox’s Letter to Members of Congress on H.R. 5175, the Disclose Act
      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.

    • JeffH

      Raggs, I do get it, and loud and clear…by the stance the NRA has taken, the bill is dead…understand that, DEAD. The liberals will not allow the NRA an exemption and thustly will not get the bill passed. Diane Feinstein is livid and the greatest anti-gun proponent in Washington…HR 5175 is dead in it’s tracks.
      It may not always make sense but I do trust the NRA.

      Perhaps other gun groups could join and learn from the NRA. Don’t we have to be concerned about the “bigger picture” here, our 2nd Amendement rights? The NRA is now powerful enough to fight for your freedom because they are able to now play on an equal level in Washington.

      Another victory for the bulletproof NRA
      Long regarded as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in town, the GOP-friendly NRA has had a remarkable series of political victories in recent months that underscore its continuing influence on Capitol Hill — no matter which party holds the reins and no matter what policy issues are involved.

      The reason for the group’s (NRA) recent successes? “It’s a well-known fact that it’s bad politics and bad policy to be on the wrong side of the gun issue,” said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, adding that lawmakers are responding to strong support for Second Amendment rights among voters.

      Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called the NRA disclosure exemption “a demonstration of blatant political cynicism” by House Democrats. “It seems there is a new condition that must be met before almost any federal legislation is allowed to proceed: make sure the legislation doesn’t upset the gun lobby bosses,” Helmke wrote on his blog.

      The two gun-control groups, Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center, joined 43 other liberal-leaning organizations Wednesday in opposing the NRA deal, writing in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that it “is inappropriate and inequitable to create a two-tiered system of campaign finance laws and First Amendment protection.”

      Arulanandam said the NRA does not have it as easy as critics suggest. “Nothing is easy for us,” he said. “Whatever we are able to get, we have to work very hard for.”

      • DaveH

        So, Jeff, you would hang around with a guy that would sell you out as long as the attackers promised they wouldn’t harm him?

        • JeffH

          DaveH, I would hope you know me a little better than that. I trust the NRA, you don’t. It’s as simple as that.

        • JeffH

          DaveH, I’m not trying to be an ass, but that question wreaks of the sounds of denisso and eyes.

          • DaveH

            Not at all. I love Freedom. Denniso and Eyes don’t. It’s as simple as that.

          • JeffH

            I apologise…for a low blow. I have the utmost respect for you, know you are about freedom of choice and always will.

      • JC

        Ok Jeff, I guess due to the amount of explaining you were doing I decided to re-read the statement from the NRA and tried to do so with out bias.
        If this was a political manouver to kill the bill, and it works, the NRA is very crafty aren’t they?
        I’ll have to see how it plays out.
        Good day! :)

        • JeffH

          JC, my heart will be broken otherwise, well not broken ut very very dissapointed. I’m certainly not finished with my inquirey to Chris Cox and the NRA/ILA over this. I just think it too early to get off the bus. As for Harry Reid, I despise the guy too and I know that the NRA has never endorsed him but what he did for Nevada and the shooters was a positive amongst the negatives Reid offers. Sometimes a little honey goes a long way.

          • Steve

            Thanks for the good explanation. When I first heard about this issue earlier this week I was considering asking the NRA for my $1,000. back that I spent for my life membership last year. I wrote them letters asking WHY their position on HB5175, and got the proverbial “form letter” back, which didn’t exactly answer my questions. It appeared at first as if the NRA had thrown all the other pro 2nd amendment organizations under the bus, but now it appears there was a sub plan.

          • JC

            The only reason the vote was pulled was because some inside the Democratic Party objected to the exemption for the NRA.
            Not because of anything the NRA itself did or didn’t do.

  • Raggs
  • DaveH

    The NRA almost lost us our gun rights 3 or so decades ago by making gun ownership a sporting issue. Were they inept or mischievious? Who knows, but the bottom line is that only a small portion of the population hunts, shoots trap, or other such events. So the effect was to weaken our gun rights support amongst the general population. It wasn’t until about 1990 that I remember them starting to embrace the concept of protecting ourselves against criminals or an out-of-control government. And I can’t help but wonder if that wasn’t a result of other Gun Lobbies coming on line who were making that an issue such as Gun Owners of America and Second Amendment Foundation. The question is “if the NRA was fully protecting our gun-rights, then why did these other organizations even bother forming?”

    • JeffH

      “The question is “if the NRA was fully protecting our gun-rights, then why did these other organizations even bother forming?””

      Why are their other racing organizations besides NASCAR? Why are their multiple hunting conservation organizations? Why are their multiple ladies organizations? Why are their multiple political organizations? Why are there multiple gun rights organizations?

      If everybody agreed, it would be simple to have one representative organization. Unfortunately MAN is involved so nothing will ever be 100% agreed upon.

      I belong to GOA and Second Amendment Foundation and gladly support them, but they don’t carry the political weight that is needed to fight the anti-gun advocates by themselve. Whether you agree or not, the NRA is a very important political tool for your gun rights.
      There is more than one way to skin a cat. I’m putting my trust in the NRA as well.

      • Raggs

        OK…. So who bought them so they would pursue a legislation?

        Don’t give me your BS!

        As with ALL independant or government ran program there is corruption and rape of the individual person.

        That my friend is why we have a constitution… Damm the rest !

        So I will speak to you as needed…
        The NRA has dropped the ball on the citizens and therefore they deserve nothing in return..
        The government likewise has failed to uphold!

        • JeffH

          Raggs, you’re one card short of a full deck. I hear what you’re saying but I think you’re over-reacting.

          You don’t want any BS so here it is. You’re acting paranoid and have no idea what you are talking about. They’re not owned by outside interests, Democrats, Republicans or stinking liberals. I think this is far more complicated than you are able to comprehend.
          Take a step back, a deep breath and think about it. It’s not cheap to do the thinks they do, they’re big time now. The same people that hated them before still hate them today and they are fighting for your freedom just like GOA and SAF.

          And yes, I keep ‘em loaded also.

      • DaveH

        Jeff, I respect your right to choose which organizations you want to belong to.

        • JeffH

          Thank you and like wise. If I’m wrong I’ll be the first one to say so but I’ll trust my gut on this one.

        • JC

          I think we should see how it plays out.
          The NRA is an American icon and I’d rather not have any more of my
          beliefs shattered this year.
          Although I do have to say…hob nobbing with Harry Reid looks a lot like strippers do on Tiger Woods. Just kind of pathetic ya know?

  • Raggs

    I hope the NRA will listen, but I have very many doubts on that.

    They put me in mind of the unions, you know give me more and more.

    When it comes to the nut cutting they run scared..

    They deserve nothing.

  • Raggs

    The next clue is?

    The only one that will uphold your rigths?


    And if you don’t care who the hell will care?


    I will always keep-um-loaded!

  • Raggs

    I have stated in a prior post that I am a lifetime member of the NRA

    To me I’m finding an organization of insurance sellers and the likes of thugs (unions) maybe… I get thousands of e-mails to purchase a health plan, insurance, and crap I have no desire in…

    Don’t that sound like someone that is trying to uphold my rights?

  • GregS

    The Democrats are trying to rush this bill through Congress before November, so that it will give THEM an advantage in the elections. Most legal experts believe that the bill is unlikely to withstand judicial challenge, but the courts will probably NOT have time to rule on the constitutionality of the act before the 2010 election is over. It will muzzle many conservative nonprofit citizen groups so that it is almost impossible to communicate with the public about the actions of federal lawmakers. Therefore, it is extremely important that we ALL contact our legislators ASAP to tell them NOT to pass this bill.

    • GregS

      I forgot to add, tell your friends about this bill, and spread the word to as many blogs and websites as possible. This bill is dangerous to our freedom of speech, especially in the upcoming elections!

  • JeffH

    DaveH, JC and Raggs…this is a letter I fired off to the NRA/ILA…I apologise to each of you and expect an answer to my letter from the NRA/ILA.

    I am concerned about the NRA’s position on the proposed Disclose Act H.B. 5175. Your fight for freedom has always been for everybody, not just the NRA and should the NRA be allowed an exemption from this legislation and “stand down” further NRA open opposition to H.R. 5175 I would certainly have to re-consider my future support for the NRA for recieving a “special favor” and thus, tossing every other organization “under the bus” in order to recieve this “special exemption”.
    Please make a statement for all to see that the NRA truly stands for liberty and freedom and will oppose H.R. 5175 under any and all circumstances.

    • JeffH

      I recieved my answer and I support the NRA in their action…some of the important response below.

      “The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice. We didn’t “sell out” to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If it doesn’t, we will continue to strongly oppose the bill.”

      “There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.”

      “The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That’s their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.”

  • Myron J. Poltroonian

    As a “Poor, but proud life member of the NRA”, I must ask the following: How many of you really believe that any organization that has 4 million gun owning members of above average proficiency and an abiding interest in preserving their second amendment rights really wants to “tee” them off? Will you please raise your hands? Now go sit (or stand, if you’re able) in a corner and beat your little heads against the wall. It is not a waste of money to join the NRA. Rather, it is one of the best investments in your children’s freedoms you can make. We are the nations oldest civil rights organization – for a reason. If you doubt me, look up our record and make up your minds armed with all the facts. Not just those of small minded, self centered ideologues, full of “My Way, Or The Highway” sound, fury and venom. Remember: “Divide and Conquer” is a favorite tactic of freedom’s enemies. Joining more than one organization may prove fruitful, if, and I repeat, “IF” you don’t allow them to work at cross purposes. If the respective entities have divergent points of view or methods of achieving some goal, don’t be a “Bump on a Log”, speak up. Ask for answers. Demand more from them, not less. Which part of “Active Membership” don’t you understand? Now. Go discuss it amongst yourselves – then grow up.

    • JC
      • JeffH

        JC, I’ve sent the NRA another letter explaining my position with HB 5175 regarding their decision not to participate in the final debate.
        I will not withdraw my membership and contiue to monitor them regarding my support, although disheartened by their decision. I do, however, understand their position and feel I’m being pulled in two directions…as I’m sure you can see my dilema. I also still believe in the NRA…and as you said, we’ll see how it plays out.
        They have made it very clear that under no circumstances will they support the bill. As I’m sure you are aware, the MSM will get as much play out of this as they can and for what it’s worth, Feinstein and the anti-gun movement is livid. I just don’t see it passing muster now.

        • Steve

          If Feinstein, the Brady bunch and the rest of the liberal commie/socialists 2nd amendment haters are pizzed off,, that must be good for us…yes?

        • JC

          Jeff, I sent them a letter as well.
          I suggested that if they weren’t openly opposing it they might as well endorse it.
          I also suggested in regards to Harry “cap and tax” Reid that they will be judged by the company they keep.
          Maybe we’ll get lucky and Feinstein will have a stroke. ;)

          • JeffH

            Something I’ve dreamed about for Feinstein for a long while.

  • GregS

    It looks like the DISCLOSE Act has been pulled, at least for now. Thank Goodness!

    • JeffH

      GregS, this is how I saw it playing out, thank God. To be honest, I don’t know whether the NRA was good or lucky, but I was pretty sure that the powers that be in DC hated the NRA enough to kill the deal.

      • JC

        You could say the NRA dodged a bullet Jeff.
        Still it would have gone ahead as planned if not for the “Frothing at the Mouth” 2nd Amendment haters that refused to go along with the NRA exemtion.

        • JeffH

          I can’t argue it.

        • JeffH

          JC says:
          June 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
          The only reason the vote was pulled was because some inside the Democratic Party objected to the exemption for the NRA.
          Not because of anything the NRA itself did or didn’t do.

          JC…One can only say that the very existance of the NRA named as an exemption was enough for the Dems/left to pull the bill. There is something positive out of this until re-introduced.

          • JC

            It’s a good thing that millions of gun owners are recognized all at once, that’s for sure. I have a life membership, and it would actually take more effort to ask them to take me odd the rolls that to leave well enough alone anyway.
            I’m guessing they’ll think twice before being seen as weak or unprincipled again.

          • JC

            off not “odd” :)

    • GregS

      Oops! I spoke too soon. Now it looks like Pelousy and her cronies are going to reschedule the vote on this for next week!

      • JeffH

        GregS, not necessarily so…we’ll see what Nazi Pelousy has in store.
        There still seems to be heavy opposition from all fronts.

        • GregS

          I pray that you are correct, Jeff.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.