My Speech Should Be Protected...Yours Not So Much

The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending Act) has been a source of contention between the left and right over the past few months (though it has obviously taken a back seat to oil spills, SCOTUS nominations, and basically everything else in Washington because anything else is more exciting than the DISCLOSE Act.). According to the three cosponsors- Chuck Schumer, Russ Feingold, and Patrick Leahy, the DISCLOSE Act aims to accomplish these 7 things (directly cut and pasted from discloseact.com)…

1. Enhance Disclaimers
Make CEOs and other leaders take responsibility for their ads.
2. Enhance Disclosures
It is time to follow the money.
3. Prevent Foreign Influence
Foreign countries and entities should not be determining the outcome of our elections.
4. Shareholder/Member Disclosure
We should allow shareholders and members to know where money goes.
5. Prevent Government Contractors from Spending
Taxpayer money should not be spent on political ads.
6. Provide the Lowest Unit Rate for Candidates and Parties
Special interests should not drown out the voices of the people.
7. Tighten Coordination Rules
Corporations should not be able to “sponsor” a candidate.

It seems benign at first. However, what this really does is tell corporations and advocacy groups on both sides of the aisle that your voice does not matter. This is directly against the First Amendment. If my fellow citizens want to pool their money together to advocate for a certain interest they should be allowed to, just as I should enjoy that right as well. This is one of those bills there their heart is in the right place, but the execution is just not there. I think corporations and unions should be 100% OUT OF ELECTIONS. That’s right, only the money of the individual should matter. There is no reason why any company, let’s say BP, should be allowed to give money to a politician. There is also no reason why, let’s say the SEIU, should be allowed to give money to a politician. The problem with the DISCLOSE Act is that it imposes restrictions ONLY ON CORPORATIONS and lets unions act as they may. This is break from decades of precedent, which treated unions and corporations in the same way. If GE cannot give to a candidate, neither should the AFL-CIO.
However, this Act also applies to special interest groups, such as the NRA. It just so happens that the NRA, like many organizations (Chamber of Commerce being another notible one) is against the DISCLOSE Act. That is, until this…

The Disclose Act would exempt organizations that “have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members from all 50 states and raise 15% or less of their funds from corporations”
Interestingly enough, along with the AARP and the Human Society (which did not take a stance on DISCLOSE) the NRA just happens to fall into this category. This is not a mistake, as Democrats threw this little passage in to solidify the support of the Blue Dog Democrats who are traditionally pro-gun rights. It also happens that the NRA has now stopped opposing the Act, so long as this sentence stays in the bill. Shameless politics? You betcha. What is worse is this comment from the NRA…

“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.”

That is from nraila.com, which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. In short, they are all for the first amendment when their rights are being infringed upon, but as long as they can lock and load, the government could shoot people for disagreeing with official government positions. I have several questions for Mr. LaPierre….

1. What other parts of the Bill of Rights do you believe America can do without?

2. Why are the rights of 4 million Americans more important than the other 300+ Million?

3. Why do you hate corporate America?

I also propose interrupting him constantly in order to show him that silencing speech is as annoying as it is un-American. It is odd that he would be at odds with Elena Kagan on gun rights, but right by her side on restricting free speech. Then again, nothing about being against the first amendment is anything but odd. Congratulations Mr. LaPierre, when the tyrants come to silence us, we know which building in Virginia to stop at first in order hold those accountable for the destruction of freedom in America- yours.