|
|
|
|
Why You Must Immediately Contact
Congress to Oppose the "DISCLOSE
Act" Part Two of Four By Dave Andrusko Part One today is the Action Alert on the egregiously mislabeled "DISCLOSE Act," which pro-abortion Democrats are trying to zip through the legislative process before the electorate catches on. (See "Urgent: Call Congress To Oppose DISCLOSE Act.") I confess that few things so bring out the inner "goo-goo" (good government) in me than blatant assaults on freedom of speech. Add to that unabashed one-sidedness and it gets your blood to boiling. Since NRLC's full explanation for our opposition to the DISCLOSE Act can be found at http://www.nrlc.org/freespeech/NRLNewsDISCLOSEAct.pdf, let me just make three quick comments by way of urging you to take action.
First, the entire objective boils down to coming up with ways to muzzle corporations--including incorporated nonprofit citizen groups such as NRLC--so that it is nigh on impossible to communicate with the public about the actions of federal lawmakers. It is dressed up in highfalutin language, but that's all for show. "Keep the public in the dark" is the unspoken motto of the DISCLOSE Act's Democratic sponsors. At the same time the law is making life enormously more difficult for groups like NRLC, considerably more latitude is left for labor unions--generally the allies of the dominate liberal wing of the Democrats--to take advantage of the Supreme Court's January 21 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the decision which started the Democrats' latest all-out assault on the First Amendment. Second, the legislative skids are being greased even though there is little chance the law would ultimately be upheld by the Supreme Court. The front page story in the June issue of NRL News carries an important quote from Bradley Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. "That Congress would respond to a Supreme Court decision affirming corporations' freedom of speech by restricting that freedom to an even greater extent than it did before the decision is remarkable," Smith wrote in the June 7 edition of National Review. "The attempt is unlikely to withstand judicial challenge, but, as Senator Schumer made clear early on, he believes the courts won't have time to rule on the constitutionality of the act before the 2010 election is over." Third, controversy has arisen, not just because the law is so blatantly unfair, but because, in order to neutralize the powerful National Rifle Association, Democrats carved out an exception for the NRA. As the publication, The Hill reported, "The deal with the gun lobby, which leaders deemed critical for garnering make-or-break support from pro-gun Democrats, has set off a cascade of denunciations from lawmakers and outside groups across the ideological spectrum." But in the final analysis if this mockery is to be defeated, it is imperative that you act immediately. Begin by going to www.capwiz.com/nrlc/callalert/index.tt?alertid=15147096. Please do so today! |
