As a newly-minted Life Member of the NRA, I called the NRA-ILA to get some kind of explanation of their position on the DISCLOSE ACT. Their response was a mixed bag. Turns out the vaunted “exemption” everybody’s talking about is a proposal; nothing’s firmed up or in the bill. Yet. But the exemption seems carefully crafted to avoid stepping on the toes of the organizations with the biggest pursestrings – namely the NRA, AARP, and the trade unions. (!) Essentially, if you have more than a million members, been around more than 10 years, and get most of your money from individuals rather than corporate contributors, you’re in like Flynn. Or out, as in outside the reach of the DISCLOSE act. If you’re new (Tea Party), small (virtually any grass roots organization) or get most of your money from corporations (most lobbyists like those for Big Oil, Big Tobacco, etc.) you’re screwed.

I was also informed that the NRA opposes the law in it’s current form (good). If the exemption kicks in, they will drop their opposition (bad) because it won’t pertain to the NRA, and therefore falls outside of their chartered mandate. Where I come from, them’s weasel-words for “we don’t have a dog in that there fight, so we’ll keep our powder dry for another time.”

I suggested that a vast majority of the membership might take umbrage with this approach, it might behoove the NRA to poll the membership to see if they feel strongly about the issue and the NRA’s proposed course of action.

I’ll let you know here if my suggestion penetrated the Beltway mentality and moved them off the dime.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

2 COMMENTS

  1. " Where I come from, them’s weasel-words for “we don’t have a dog in that there fight, so we’ll keep our powder dry for another time.”"

    Could very well be that, or it could be that they only have a certain amount of powder and do not want to use it now when I ( and others) expect them to need it later.

    Since I am not a NRA member it is somewhat theoretical for me but I do understand their point of view. That is not to say that I like this bill, just that I understand the NRAs viewpoint.

    As always I could be wrong.

    Best wishes

    NukemJim

  2. Jim – you make a valid point, but I keep thinking about how allowing our rights to erode in the slightest is a screamingly bad idea. Nobody from the NRA asked me about how I feel about this act. I suspect they are operating without the input from the rank-and-file. In the rarefied air that fills the logic-free zone that is D.C., it's easy to see how the NRA could come to the conclusion that half a loaf is better than none – all those guys do in Congress is trade support…I'll support your pet project if you agree to back mine. Lost in the shuffle are the interests of We the People and the Constitution itself. That's flat-out wrong. If we lose this fight, it's just a hop, skip and a jump to silence other groups selectively, like the NRA. I say, stand shoulder-to-shoulder NOW and stop this madness in it's tracks.

Comments are closed.