NRA and Freedom of Speech

UPDATE - Editor's Note: The NRA's response to the issues raised in this piece has been included below.

by Jeff Knox

A firestorm was ignited this week when it was announced that House Democrats had carved out an exemption for the National Rifle Association in proposed new federal campaign law legislation and that NRA was no longer going to oppose the bill.

The new campaign legislation is a response to the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission. In that case the Court held that groups like NRA could not be blocked from mentioning a candidate's name during the 60 days prior to an election. The proposed legislation – which is still only available in synopsis form – would tightly regulate the political speech of any corporation (most non-profits and political organizations are corporations) and require extensive recordkeeping and public disclosure of contributors names. Such disclosure is particularly hard on gun rights organizations as our members tend to be vehemently opposed to having their names put on lists – particularly lists identifying them as likely gun owners.

NRA has long been a leader in defense of constitutionally protected political speech and they had stepped up in opposition to this latest threat. Unfortunately, rather than stand strong on principle of liberty and the rule of the Constitution, NRA suggested to the bill's sponsors that as long as the proposed legislation did not apply to NRA, the association would withdraw their opposition. Good for NRA, but bad for every other group and the Constitution.

Detractors immediately accused leaders of the 4 million member gun owner group of betraying their principles, their state affiliates, and all gunowners who support groups other than the NRA.

NRA Executive Vice-President, Wayne LaPierre strongly defended the association's actions during an interview with syndicated talk show host Lars Larson. LaPierre declared that as CEO of NRA his first responsibility was to protect and defend the Second Amendment and NRA's ability to defend those rights via the First Amendment. LaPierre repeatedly stated strong personal and corporate repugnance to any attempt to abridge First Amendment rights, but made it clear that as long as the, so called, "DISCLOSE Act" did not directly impact NRA the association would not actively oppose the bill. In LaPierre's words, "We're not in it."

In an ironic twist it appears likely that the NRA deal has seriously diminished the chances the "DISCLOSE Act" had of passing. At least three Democrat Senators have expressed their opposition to the bill; Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Dianne Feinstein of California object to NRA being exempted from the speech restriction bill, while Ben Nelson of Nebraska opposes the whole idea of restricting political speech. Their opposition places the Democrats' ability to break a filibuster in serious doubt. Of course a filibuster would only succeed if all Republicans in the Senate were to stick together – something they are not noted for.

House members are also balking at the bill as the outrage of the grass roots is beginning to burn up their telephone and internet connections and more members of Congress learn the particulars of the bill and of the special treatment allotted to NRA. Conservative and liberal groups alike are loudly objecting to the NRA exemption. This brings much-needed exposure to the speech limitation legislation and is causing conflict among the supporters of the bill. Many oppose the NRA exception, but many more, who depend on GunVoter support for reelection, say they will not support the bill if NRA or GunVoters oppose it. Sponsors of the bill are in the difficult position of either staying the present course and muscling through the objections of their fellow Democrats, broadening definitions to exempt many more groups, or removing the NRA exemption and having one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the country once again fighting the bill with all of their resources.

The confusion and conflict among Democrats is good news for supporters of liberty and the Constitution. Had the current political situation been created in any manner other than NRA placing self-interest above constitutional principles I would be thrilled with the situation, instead I am frustrated and disappointed. As a Life Member of NRA I strongly support their political agenda as well as their shooting programs. In this instance I fear that Mr. LaPierre and NRA leadership have seriously shot themselves in the foot and their intransigent, unapologetic attitude is just adding insult to injury.

NRA's opposition to the rape of the First Amendment should not be based solely on how such rape will affect them directly, but also how it will affect the movement as a whole, their state affiliates and fellow rights organizations, and the integrity of the Constitution itself. When they accepted this deal, NRA abdicated the moral high ground in favor of wallowing in the mud with the swine.

Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

Setting The Record Straight On The "DISCLOSE Act"

We appreciate the concerns some NRA members have raised about our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Unfortunately, the mainstream media and other critics of NRA's role in this process have misstated or misunderstood the facts. We'd like to set the record straight.

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 (click here to read the letter).

Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members’ right to privacy and freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The introduced version of the bill would also have prohibited political speech by all federal government contractors. The NRA has contracts to provide critical firearm training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The bill would have forced us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refused to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We told Congress we opposed the bill. Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House. If it doesn’t, we will strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn’t happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

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 non-partisan, 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.

Today, the fate of the bill remains in doubt. The House floor debate has repeatedly been postponed. Lawmakers and outside groups who once supported the bill, or took no position—including the Brady Campaign—have now come out against it because of the announcement regarding NRA. The outcome in the Senate is even murkier, as anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has announced her strong opposition to the proposed change.

No matter what may happen now, NRA members can be assured that protection of gun owners’ interests will remain NRA’s top priority. Please check in regularly at www.nraila.org for the latest news on this issue.