Shuler Protects the NRA, Fails the Rest of Us

I'm sorry to disappoint what appears to be a very strong sense of we/they, but I'm a liberal democrat, and very proud of it. If you think that no one can be a liberal democrat without sharing your concept of what makes political sense, or worse, if you assume that unless a person believes as you do, he or she is bereft of genuine "values," you're in for a hard road of hoeing.

I'm not a staffer or volunteer for Heath Shuler, and am not sure I understand what evidence you think would support the assumption. Nor is it clear to me what you think was a concrete example of my "failure of philosophy." In fact, I didn't even think you were trying to do that; it seemed to me your effort was simply aimed at expressing vitriol. I have no problem with vitriol, per se, but it doesn't substitute for argument, and you certainly haven't provided that -- not here nor in the original thread.

But you sure seem all bent out of shape about my disagreeing with ya!

You can't make peace with the NRA - they are part of the GOP machine and have no desire to be anything else.

Regardless of if one supports the NRA or the Democratic Party, it is clearly wrong to have a bill that expressly exempts one particular interest or group. Everybody has to follow this law except Joe? That's clearly wrong.

The other reason to highlight Shuler is that he is a North Carolinian, he is your representative.

Since you can't get the link to open, below is the full text:

House Democrats have offered to exempt the National Rifle Association from a sweeping campaign-finance bill, removing a major obstacle in the push to roll back the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

The NRA had objected to some of the strict financial disclosure provisions that Democrats have proposed for corporations and politically active nonprofits and that had kept moderate, pro-gun Democrats from backing the legislation.

But if the NRA signs off on the deal, the bill could come to the House floor as early as this week. The NRA said it would not comment until specific legislative language is revealed.

An NRA official also noted that the group would not be supporting the bill but would not actively oppose it if the deal with the Democratic leadership holds up.

The legislation in question is designed to restore more campaign finance rules in the wake of last year’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which removed prohibitions on corporations and unions running TV ads opposing or backing candidates in the run-up to an election.

Democratic leaders fear the Citizens United decision could open the floodgates for corporate money to flow into this year’s midterm elections, which they believe would favor Republican interests.

The legislation, offered by Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, would require special-interest groups to disclose their top donors if they choose to run TV ads or send out mass mailings in the final months of an election.

Democrats are justifying the NRA exemption, saying the organization has a long history of being involved in the political process, and they say the real goal of the new campaign finance bill is to expose corporations and unions that create ambiguous front groups to run attack ads during campaigns. Unions would not be allowed to use the NRA exemption.

North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler, an NRA backer and conservative Democrat, proved to be pivotal to the NRA deal. Shuler was the first to offer an amendment to exempt the NRA and other nonprofits from the legislation, but that move drew objections from campaign watchdog groups.

“There were a number of concerns that the DISCLOSE Act could hinder or penalize the efforts of certain long-standing, member-driven organizations who have historically acted in good faith,” Shuler said, referring to the NRA. “Most of those concerns are addressed within the manager’s amendment.”

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. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources.

The exemption for a huge group like the NRA is sure to outrage smaller special-interest groups.

Even if this deal represents a breakthrough for key House Democrats, there still isn’t much support from Republicans or Big Business. The Chamber of Commerce still opposes the legislation, and it’s not clear that the Senate will take it up even if the House passes it.

“This legislation is a threat to the First Amendment rights of businesses across the country. It represents a significant departure from past campaign-finance legislation, which sought to treat unions and corporations comparably and was framed in a genuinely bipartisan manner,” the Chamber and more than 100 other trade associations wrote in a May 27 letter sent to lawmakers.

House Republicans have largely opposed the DISCLOSE Act as well, seeing it as an attempt by Democrats to use the legislation to retain their majority. Only two Republicans — Reps. Mike Castle of Delaware and Walter Jones of North Carolina — have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. By comparison, 114 Democrats are currently listed as co-sponsors.

“This bill is both a smoke screen to adopt still more restrictions on political speech in the name of ‘reform’ and an attempt to use Citizens United as a smoke screen to stifle criticism of Democrats in order to help their candidates retain office in the 2010 election,” Reps. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Gregg Harper (R-Miss.) wrote in a response to the bill when it was before the House Administration Committee.

A similar bill authored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has been referred to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee — which Schumer chairs — but no action has been taken on it yet.

The legislation would also ban “electioneering activity” by government contractors or those companies that received Troubled Asset Relief Program funds; prohibit foreign-owned companies from engaging in political activities; and require corporations, unions and other nonprofits to provide a list of their top five funders when running TV ads or other campaign activities.