How powerful is the NRA politically?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Now the next question for debate is did the NRA intend for this to happen? Reading the Politico article, it looks like there were a bunch of "traditionally Democratic supporting" interest groups that had decided to remain neutral on the DISCLOSE Act legislation; but changed their position once the NRA got a special carve out.

In fact, it looks like they lowered the membership number to 500,000 (only the NRA met the million mark) in order to include the Sierra Club, AARP, the Humane Society and a few others; but the Sierra Club went from their neutral status to "opposed" solely because of the NRA carve-out (and to their credit, they maintained the opposed status even after the membership number was lowered). It also looks like the unions and NAACP started grumbling mightily when they heard about the NRA carve out.

So now it looks like the bill is completely dead; but the NRA is exempt even if it isn't AND the Dems owe them whether the bill passes or not. Not a bad day's work, intentional or not.
Click to expand...
An interesting example of how the political process works and how the path to a desirable result is seldom obvious or linear.

As Bismark said, "Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made."
 
Does anyone on this forum play chess?
Click to expand...
Yep, and I'm thinking stalemate :)

Frankly, I despise the bill. It's an attempt to stifle free speech and override a Supreme Court decision that a certain political stripe finds politically inexpedient.

I doubt the NRA could have killed it directly, so they did what they could to make sure that they acted in the best interests of their organization and membership. Funny thing that this week's email from the Brady Campaign seems to think they could, though:

Can you believe it? U.S. House Democrats have agreed to a special exemption for the NRA from new campaign finance disclosure laws under pending legislation proposed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

This is an outrage! Why should Congress appease NRA bosses and let them play by a different set of rules than the rest of us? We need your help to stop this bill from moving.
Click to expand...

Now, whether they meant to or not, their exception seems to have been a factor in killing it. How many people on our side are going to thank them for it?
 
Is anybody else's head spinning? :confused:

I really don't know whether to think the NRA simply acted in what they perceived to be the best interests of their membership and killing the bill was an unintended (but welcome) consequence, or whether they devised a Machiavellian strategy to defeat the bill by creating outrage, while increasing the perception of their political prowess, at the expense of some minor resentment by other pro-gun organizations.

It reminds me of the gamble between Vizzini and Wesley in The Princess Bride. Vizzini (the Democrats) try to pull a fast one, only to find that Wesley (the NRA) has rigged it so that he will triumph regardless of what Vizzini does. :rolleyes:
 
NRA

Yesterday I e-mailed the NRA and told them how upset i was about this. Today I got a reply back. Here is what they sent me

"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."


So.... what do you think? I have already e-mailed our Congressmen (GA)...
 
I can't take credit for this but I think it's an excellent explanation of what was going on in DC. My friend Tony posted this and similar items for the Members' Councils here in CA.
----------
To All,
A story at Politico today notes that Nancy Pelosi has "pulled" the DISCLOSE Act on "campaign finance reform" over massive opposition within the Democrat Party from key factions.

"Blue Dog" Democrats appear concerned over the impact to such small business lobbying groups such as NFIB, who have a certain amount of "pull" in key Southern districts.

And Congressional Black Caucus and other progressive groups are upset at the receipt of an exception one can drive a gun truck through by first the NRA, then such Way Left groups as Sierra Club.

In other words, all the Democrat Interest Groups want the same "deal" that NRA got, but without having the gravitas of the NRA. And if they don't get what they want, the Democrat Caucus won't vote this bill through.

If that happens, the bill dies.

And this is before this "Bride of Chuckie" bill arrives "at the altar" in the Senate, where Primary Sponsor Charles Schumer would be faced with the prospect that his bill would exempt the NRA from his intent to muzzle speech. His intended target had the "juice" to shove an arranged marriage down his throat if the final Conference product keeps the NRA exemption in place.

If Chuckles doesn't like that, but has to keep the NRA exemption, the bill dies.

It thus remains to be seen how much a poison pill this arranged marriage turns out to be, and whether it happens in the House, the Senate, the Conference, or even Obama's desk itself. (After all, does one reasonably think that Obama wants a fully operational NRA "Deathstar"-style political campaign in 2012???).

If the exception for the NRA remains, and either side of the Congress vote against it, the bill dies.

If the bill has enough exceptions to cover every Democrat interest group from Berkeley to Truro, then one can legitimately ask "what's the point", or who will it "hurt? In effect, the bill's threat dies.

Or, if the NRA's exemption gets removed by the Congressional Black Caucus or some other whiny group, NRA and the Sierra Club will vote to oppose the bill, and again it dies because they couldn't get it out of committee in the first place without NRA "cooperation".

Notice the potential Meme of the Week here- THE BILL DIES, OR IT DOESN'T REALLY HURT RKBA GROUPS UNTIL IT THEORETICALLY SURVIVES ALL SCOTUS CHALLENGES.

It may not be pretty, but like the Laker's Game 7 win at Staples, it's the way things are done under the current Regime. You do what you have to do, and worry about style and form points later. You do what it takes to beat the "Big Baby" Davis' out there, not whine and flop that once again the Lib-Dems are going to dispense with the Rule Book that is the Constitution.

And face these facts as well: Only the theological ideologues will actually care that it does not conform to some theoretical construct of how politics is supposed to be. What did they really expect from this "Chicago Way"-style of government that the American voter decided to try on like a pair of Air Jordans. No one who has any real and practical experience in American politics can say that they expected Liberal Progressives to abide by some "Marquis of Queensbury" set of political rules. It's MMA out there, not Powderpuff Football.
Only "Can-Do" groups will survive the Obama Regime. "Can't Do" groups will go the way of BP.

It's a hard lesson, but that's the way it is.

Link at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38698.html
 
Or, if the NRA's exemption gets removed by the Congressional Black Caucus or some other whiny group, NRA and the Sierra Club will vote to oppose the bill, and again it dies because they couldn't get it out of committee in the first place without NRA "cooperation".
Click to expand...
Yep. Remember that the DC Voting Rights act was killed by adding the 2nd Amendment Enforcement Act, which the Democrats could not excise from the bill. Forced with having to accept it (twice, in fact), they abandoned the idea of getting the District a House seat.

I've heard that this was exactly what the NRA planned to do here. Best case scenario was getting DISCLOSE killed; worst-case scenario was being sure they were immune from the effects if it passed.

I'm really not seeing the great moral quandary here.
 
I used to play chess....

Does anyone on this forum play chess?

Yep, and I'm thinking stalemate
Click to expand...

And I'm not seeing a stalemate here. What I am seeing is a a gambit declined, one, which taken would have resulted in and exchange where we come out ahead by at least a pawn, and possibly a knight.

The only questionable thing in my mind right now is whether or not the NRA sought out the exemption, or whether the administration brought it up as a way to remove the political power of the NRA from opposition to the bill.

Initial reports (always never fully accurate) portrayed the NRA as having sought, and gotten an exemption. Based on later reports, this does not seem to have been the case.

Plans within plans. It might be that the NRA felt that by taking the position they did, and seeing that it became public knowledge, would spur enough outrage from others (non exempt) that it would kill the exemption (whereupon the NRA could get back in the fight), or even better, kill the bill entirely, which seems to be what is happening now.

If the NRA sought out the exemption, as a stalking horse, that was a potentially dangerous move, as it would be sure to bring the ire of many. But it appears to have been a move that has worked out. If they didn't seek the exemption, but merely accepted it (again with the knowledge of what "disclosure" of the deal would mean, I say BRAVO, and well played!

They have an excellent loophole to use (taking position only on things that affect their ability to speak for 2nd Amendment issues), and may even have done so as a result of the recent criticism about the NRA becoming associated with the political conservative movement. We can only speculate as to the exact reasoning, but in light of a lack of evidence to the contrary, I am going to count this one as a shrewed move on the part of the NRA's political chessmasters.

I wonder if the right wing spoksmen on talk radio, and elsewhere, will recognize that.
 
Actually, I think this all worked out perfectly. The NRA is a single-issue special interest group and should remain focused on that single issue. They have no duty to become involved in fights which do not pertain to their issue of interest (2A issues). If this bill adversely affects some other group such as GOA, the Sierra Club, the National Black Caucus, or anyone else, it is the responsibility of that group to fight the bill until it no longer adversely affects them. I see no reason whatsoever for the NRA to go to bat, and possibly fall on the sword, for groups that are so critical of them like GOA.

The reason that I say this worked out perfectly is because the situation I described above is exactly what happened. Once the amendment was added in order to shut up the NRA, everyone else started coming out of the woodwork screaming "I want mine too!" This left the uncomfortable choice between either giving up and killing the bill or neutering it into irrelevancy.
 
Who gets exemptions from which particular amendment on which particular day based one the benevolence of politicians, bothers me more than the NRA working toward it's own interests.

Freedom of speech for these but not those, guns ok here but not there, religion used this way but not that way....on and on. I have heard the NRA faulted over this, but they aren't the law makers in charge, so it seems misplaced.
 
"Well, I did get an email from the GOA this morning in which they took credit for killing it."

Another stunning victory by American's most....

Well, if I continued that thought I'd probably be stripped of my moderatorship, banned from the forum, AND excommunicated by all of the world's major religions...
 
Well, if I continued that thought I'd probably be stripped of my moderatorship, banned from the forum, AND excommunicated by all of the world's major religions...
Click to expand...

S'Okay! We all know what you're thinking. Most of us are thinking it too! :p
 
I see no reason whatsoever for the NRA to go to bat, and possibly fall on the sword, for groups that are so critical of them like GOA.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This morning, I got a lecture about the NRA "sell out" from a guy who ended it with, "they're just playing inside-the-beltway politics!"

...which is exactly what I pay them for. :)
 
Antipitas said:
I have not been particularly kind to Chris Cox, since he finagled time from Gura at the McDonald orals. I find I now owe him a "Thank You" for this particular maneuver.
Click to expand...

I'm not really convinced this was an intentional plan as much as just the way things worked out, but grabbing Supreme Court time was intentional and considering the reception Gura's argument got, I'd say we all owe the NRA thanks for that one more than this one. We'll know soon.
 
Tom Servo said:
...I got a lecture about the NRA "sell out" from a guy who ended it with, "they're just playing inside-the-beltway politics!"

...which is exactly what I pay them for....
Click to expand...
Right on!!!!!!!

And if we're trying to accomplish things "inside-the-beltway" we better know the rules and be adept at doing things the way they are done there.
 
The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions.
Click to expand...

This tailored exemption, even after it was modified to lower the standards and include the Sierra Club et al., put the lie to the stated purpose of the bill. If they were genuinely trying to stop "front groups" the requirements could be FAR less stringent. It would be difficult for a front organization to get 1,000 or 5,000 members in all 50 states, let alone half a million. You are not "legit" enough to speak for ten years? Wouldn't two be enough?
 
Any person or company with enough "money" has power politically which myself I think is a bad thing.
I think ALL lobbying should be outlawed, zero tolerance.
Any lobbyist caught bribing any government official and both the lobbyist and official get put away for 10 years mandatory and the company the lobbyist is lobbying for gets a 100 million fine.
It may have started out 100 years ago as a way for everybody to be heard in Congress to get things done for the little guy type thing but just like the Electoral College is has become corrupt and now completely destroys exactly what it was meant to help.

lobbyist/lobbying is about 95% of what is wrong with government today and why it works ONLY for big corporations and not the bottom 98%.

Political Power should be because there are millions of Americans that want it and demand it which the NRA has, not because of bribing government officials with campaign funds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top