GOA action alert

Obama Moves to Silence Gun Groups and Other Political Opponents
– – Bill clears committee hurdle, going to the House floor soon

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Fresh from his efforts to seize government control of the health services sector (ObamaCare) and the financial markets (“finance reform”), Barack Obama has a new priority: silence his political opposition.

As satisfying as it was for Obama to seize control of one-sixth of the economy, he has had to suffer protest from the “little people” (like us). So he is pushing the Orwellian “DISCLOSE” bill (HR 5175) to make sure gun groups and other pro-freedom forces cannot mobilize their members in the upcoming elections.

When Obama says “disclose,” what he really means is “disclose gun group membership lists.”

Not surprisingly, these efforts to shut down free speech don’t apply to Obama allies, like Democratic-leaning labor unions. They only apply to groups which are not reliable Obama allies, like Gun Owners of America.

But, for those groups whose free speech is targeted for Obama’s wrath under this bill, the consequences are severe:

  • Under Title II of the bill, GOA (and other groups, as well as many bloggers) who merely mention public officials within 60 days of an election could be required to file onerous disclosures – potentially including their membership lists.

  • Also under Title II, GOA could be required to spend as much as half of the time of a 30-second ad on government-written disclosures.

  • In addition, Sections 201 through 203 would potentially put the government’s snooping eyes on any American who voices a political opinion, despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, declared that Americans have a right to voice their opinion to an unlimited extent, if unconnected with a political campaign.

Here’s an idea: If Obama is so irritated at the Supreme Court’s defense of political free speech by groups like GOA, why doesn’t he apply his sleazy new rules to his political allies, as well?

ACTION: Please urge your congressman to vote against the anti-gun HR 5175. This bill has moved out of committee and has now been placed on the House calendar.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send the pre-written message below to your Representative.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative:

I urge you to oppose HR 5175, a bill that will deny the free speech rights of all Americans. Under Title II of this bill:

  • Groups like Gun Owners of America (and other groups, as well as many bloggers) who merely mention public officials within 60 days of an election could be required to file onerous disclosures – potentially including their membership lists – even though the Supreme Court has previously ruled in NAACP v. Alabama that membership lists (like those of GOA’s) are off limits to government control.

  • Also, groups like GOA and the NRA could be required to spend as much as half of the time of a 30-second ad on government-written disclosures.

  • In addition, Sections 201 through 203 would potentially put the government’s snooping eyes on any American who voices a political opinion, despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, declared that Americans have a right to voice their opinion to an unlimited extent, if unconnected with a political campaign.

Here’s an idea: If Obama is so irritated at the Supreme Court’s defense of political free speech by groups like GOA, why doesn’t he apply the new rules in HR 5175 to his political allies (like the labor unions), as well?

Suffice it to say, if you care anything about the First or Second Amendments, you will vote against HR 5175. GOA will be scoring this vote on their rating of Congress.

Sincerely,

Done and passed on to friends and family

Do you have a link to this bill?

The short time I spent looking did not turn up most of what you posted.

Google turned up this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR05175:

Of course, trying to use THOMAS itself to find that info turned up nothing.

GOA has it prominently on their website: http://gunowners.org/a060810.htm

  • In addition, Sections 201 through 203 would potentially put the government’s snooping eyes on any American who voices a political opinion, despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, declared that Americans have a right to voice their opinion to an unlimited extent, if unconnected with a political campaign.

Those sections have to do with campaign related activity with expenditures exceeding $10,000.

I fail to see how it impacts anyone that is unconnected to a political campaign, if someone is spending $10k they are campaigning.

how far can you get a message for less than 10k?

Until I see a verifiable second source on this, it sounds like typical fear mongering “news”…

The bill is not new, it is from 1971, and the link to the amendments have been posted. From what I read I do not believe GOA even read it.

Logic and reasoning are not allowed when the words Obama, and guns come within 15,000,000 letters of one another. If at any time these two words come closer then this, it is an obvious political communist conspiracy and anyone that disagrees with this is, well, a communist.

Not so. Some groups, like the NRA and GOA, aren’t really campaigning for candidates as much as they are bringing to light who will support their cause. The NRA endorses both democrats and republicans. They naturally have expenses, but they are not political parties. Bills like this would require them to be treated as if they were campaigning, when in reality they’re simply a rights group.

That is exactly what campaigning is. Again this bill has been around since 1971, so those groups are already having to report on expeditures.

Since you quoted me, you might want to read what I was replying to, which had nothing to do with groups.

  • In addition, Sections 201 through 203 would potentially put the government’s snooping eyes on any American who voices a political opinion, despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, declared that Americans have a right to voice their opinion to an unlimited extent, if unconnected with a political campaign.

Uhm, this bill has NOT been around since 1971. It is a current bill (not law) in the House that is being considered. There may already be similar laws on the books, but this bill is not a law and has not been around since 1971 as a law.

And what the GOA and NRA do is NOT campaigning. It is advocating. There is a difference between a cause advocater (probably not a real word :slight_smile: ) and campaigning. Campaigning is trying to get a certain person or bill or proposition passed and once passed the campaign is closed. NRA and GOA advocate for certain causes, and sometimes campaign for a given bill or proposition but are ongoing concerns that outlive those campaigns.

I did read your comment, and you’re not understanding the fallacy behind the reasoning.

What about the guys who spend $1,000 a month on hosting their blogs due to the traffic they receive? What about those who spend $5,000 to send out email blasts to their members? Technically, they qualify as “campaigners,” even though in reality they’re simply trying to post their opinion. You’re blurring the lines between campaigning and simply speaking out.

The people with the most influence are the ones with (typically) the most expenses. This is nothing more than a facade to reduce the effectiveness of those with a voice. Who cares if it doesn’t affect the average American? The average American is a clueless dimwit who blathers on Facebook all day long and ruins their own credibility. I guarantee you that the top political bloggers have expenses nearing or reaching that $10,000 mark.

It’s the same as the Tax Stamps for SBR/SBS/AOW. $200 isn’t much today, but when it was introduced, it was on the order of $10,000 (adjusted for inflation). They were introduced to keep the firearms out of the hands of the average person. Luckily for us, inflation has made $200 virtually nothing in terms of value.

The same goes for this “law.” Groups like the NRA and GOA aren’t political parties nor do they set out to promote specific politicians. Their sole purpose is to promote firearms, the safe use of them, and rights to keep and bear arms. That is their purpose first and foremost. Do they have a political voice? Sure, but so does every other American. Just because they support a candidate or condemn another doesn’t make them a primarily political party. Laws like this ONLY hinder the legal system.

Case in point, with inflation at its current rate, in another 100 years that $10,000 will be pocket change that the average American spends monthly. Guess what? Anyone spending that much “pocket change” to promote their political views (i.e. blogs, printed flyers, etc) could potentially fall under this law.

Learn your history and, better, learn FROM it. We don’t need more laws like this.

Uhm, this bill has NOT been around since 1971. It is a current bill (not law) in the House that is being considered. There may already be similar laws on the books, but this bill is not a law and has not been around since 1971 as a law.

Sorry this bill is an amendment of an Act from 1971.

Union Calendar No. 280
111TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. R. 5175
[Report No. 111–492, Part I]
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign
influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from
making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish
additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections,
and for other purposes.

Like I said, it is new. Amendments to old laws are new. The fact that it amends an old law does not make it potentially less dangerous or of less concern.

Just so you know what you are against, the amendments for section 202 and 203 is only to change how the filing is done, electronically instead of paper filing. It has nothing to do with who has to file, or what they file.

Amendment for section 202:

SEC. 202. ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) EXPANSION OF PERIOD COVERING GENERAL
ELECTION.—Section 304(f)(3)(A)(i)(II)(aa) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
434(f)(3)(A)(i)(II)(aa)) is amended by striking ‘‘60 days’’
and inserting ‘‘120 days’’.
(b) MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING.—Section
304(f)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(f)(1)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘file with’’ and inserting ‘‘electronically file with’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, the Commission shall ensure that the information required to be disclosed under this subsection is publicly available through the Commission website
not later than 24 hours after receipt in a manner
that is downloadable in bulk and machine readable.’’.

Here is the amendment for section 203:

Section 304(d)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(d)(1)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘or (g)’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Notwith
standing any other provision of this section, any person who is required to file a statement under sub
section (f) or subsection (g) shall file the statement in
electronic form accessible by computers, in a manner
which ensures that the information provided is
searchable, sortable, and downloadable.’’.