|
|
|
|
Disclosing the Truth about
the DISCLOSE Act Part Three of Three By Dave Andrusko
A few months ago, we talked about the failure of pro-abortion Senate Democratic leaders to pass the single most egregiously mislabeled bill ever. "DISCLOSE" is an acronym for "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections." It so turns truth on its head that it could have been coined by George Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" (from his novel "1984"). See www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Aug10/nv080210.html. I was reminded of this yesterday morning by a slavishly supportive editorial in the Washington Post that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) was bringing DISCLOSE back for a second try Thursday. Fortunately, it failed to muster cloture. Good. If it weren't the likes of uber-partisan Democrats such as Reid and New York Senator Charles Schumer behind this, the behavior on display is so cynical it would almost take your breath away. They knew they'd lose, but, what the heck, they'd "have a talking point for the mid-terms," as the Christian Science Monitor put it. Republicans would be accused of being in the pocket of "powerful corporate special interest" who are "filling the airwaves" with ads. Of course, the DISCLOSE Act is as far from a non-partisan, "good government" proposal as the east is from the west. It was/is a truly noxious speech-suppressing measure which would place extensive new legal restrictions on the ability of corporations--including incorporated nonprofit citizen groups such as NRLC -- to communicate with the public about the actions of federal lawmakers. Obama and Reid fell just one vote short in July and, as predicted, brought it up again. NRLC vigorously opposed the measure and sent a strongly worded letter to Senators. It is well worth your reading. (www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/NRLCLetterToSenateOnDISCLOSEAct.pdf). My favorite paragraph in the letter reads as follows: "But there is very little in this bill, despite the pretense, that is actually intended to provide useful or necessary information to the public. The overriding purpose is precisely the opposite: To discourage, as much as possible, disfavored groups (such as NRLC) from communicating about officeholders, by exposing citizens who support such efforts to harassment and intimidation and by smothering organizations in layer on layer of record keeping and reporting requirements, all backed by the threat of civil and criminal sanctions." Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |
