Today was not a good day for advocates of so-called campaign finance “reform” and the DISCLOSE Act. In fact, it’s probably the worst day for “reformers” since the Citizens United decision came out back in January.
The day opened with word of a new special deal for a powerful organized interest group, this one designed to give the Sierra Club and possibly a few other groups the same exemption from the DISCLOSE Act that the NRA received this week.
For the “reformers” that actually believe that spending money in politics is corrupting and must be curtailed, whatever the source and agenda behind the money, it confirmed, after the Shotgun Sellout, that their partners in “reform” were simply political opportunists, willing to cut whatever deal they needed to with any interest group necessary in order to hamstring their most significant opposition, the business community. This could not have been good news.
This was followed by the intended beneficiaries of today’s deal, which would lower the membership threshold to qualify for the NRA exemption to 500,000 from 1 million, rejected the deal: the Alliance for Justice, which yesterday sent a letter to Congress signed by several liberal-leaning interest groups opposing the deal (including the Sierra Club) over the NRA exemption, today sent a new letter reiterating their opposition:
…we must respectfully express our profound opposition to the effort to create an exemption from the disclosure requirements for large, powerful organizations, which, given the amendment’s language, in reality only applies to the National Rifle Association and a limited number of other organizations.
It is inappropriate and inequitable to create a two-tiered system of campaign finance laws and First Amendment protections, one for the most powerful and influential and another for everyone else. There is no legitimate justification for privileging the speech of large entities, or of reducing the burdens of compliance for the biggest organizations yet retaining them for the smallest.
The fourth organization listed on the letter is the Sierra Club.
Also today, it was revealed that the efforts of Congressman Van Hollen and others to justify the special deal for the NRA by pointing to other groups that are exempted under the deal wasn’t, well, very accurate. From The Washington Post:
Under the compromise, longstanding national groups with more than 1 million members and that receive less than 15 percent of their funding from corporations would be exempt from requirements to disclose major funders of political-related activities. It is unclear what groups other than the NRA might qualify: Although Democratic aides cited the Humane Society of the United States as an example, a Humane Society spokeswoman said it would not qualify for the exception because of the way it is organized.
And The Huffington Post takes down the theory that AARP will enjoy these privileges as well:
Defenders of the bill pointed out that other organizations, not just the gun lobby, would qualify for the exemption. But one of those groups, the AARP, told the Huffington Post on Thursday that they had neither lobbied for, nor were they likely to use, the carve out. Electioneering, a group official said, was not an activity in which they take part.
“AARP hasn’t been involved at all in the process,” said Jim Dau a group spokesperson. “We haven’t taken a position on the bill, and we have not lobbied on either the underlying legislation or the proposed exemption. We haven’t even seen the final language beyond what’s being reported. From what we understand of the exemption, it’s a moot point. AARP does not engage in express candidate advocacy. We don’t endorse candidates, make political contributions, or — more relevant to the DISCLOSE Act — do any election-based advertising for or against any candidate or party. Simply put, AARP just doesn’t engage in the kind of express advocacy activities that would, according to press reports, receive an exemption in the new bill.”
Whoops.
This afternoon then brought word that the House Committee on Rules would be meeting at 3 p.m. today to consider amendments, in an effort to rush the DISCLOSE Act to the floor for a vote tomorrow. The meeting was then postponed, as new obstacles arose, mainly the Congressional Black Caucus, which had their own concerns about the bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently was forced to haul them in for a meeting to try to settle their concerns. Meanwhile, those of us waiting for the Rules Committee hearing to started to feel like Vladimir and Estragon.
During the postponement came word that Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, an ardent foe of the NRA, blasted the special exemption for favored interest groups and vowed he would not support the bill as long as it remained.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg on Thursday blasted a House Democratic deal that would exempt the National Rifle Association from a new campaign finance measure, accusing his House counterparts of hypocrisy and warning he won’t back the bill if it comes to the Senate.
With the House expected to send the legislation to the Senate as soon as Friday, the New Jersey Democrat’s opposition, combined with a unified opposition from Republicans, could doom the legislation’s chances in its current form.
“It is the height of irony that Congress is considering special treatment for the NRA in a bill designed to limit the role of special interests in Washington,” Lautenberg said.
Lautenberg spokesman Caley Gray made clear that his boss will not support the measure if it comes to the Senate floor with the NRA carve-out included.
“Senator Lautenberg does not believe that the poster child for special interest lobbying should be exempted from these reforms,” Gray said.
This of course means that in order to get a vote in the Senate, the DISCLOSE Act’s sponsors must find at least two Republicans to break party ranks and vote for a bill that is transparent only in its intent to stifle speakers that tend to support Republicans.
Then it came about that whatever pressure Speaker Pelosi and her leadership team brought to bear on the Congressional Black Caucus, and eventually on a group of Blue Dogs as well, was insufficient: early this evening, it was announced that no votes would be held for the rest of the week, and Members could go home, a certain signal that the necessary votes for passage could not be rounded up.
Finally, at the end of the day, the American Civil Liberties Union announced it would be opposing the DISCLOSE Act. From their letter:
Measures intended to root out corruption should not interfere with freedom of expression by those wishing to make their voices heard, and disclosure requirements should not have a chilling effect on the exercise of rights of expression and association, especially in the case of controversial political groups. Small donations to campaigns—and contributions of any size to political communications that are wholly independent of any candidate for office—have not been shown to contribute to official corruption. Accordingly, disclosure of such donations serves no legitimate public purpose.
Unfortunately, the DISCLOSE Act would wipe away such donor anonymity-most notably, that of small donors to smaller and more controversial organizations, even when those donors have nothing to do with that organization’s political speech. It would also restrict speech rights in an arbitrary manner, favoring one type of organization over another.
The ACLU’s concerns focused on four areas, none of which should be unfamiliar to anyone paying attention:
1. The DISCLOSE Act fails to preserve the anonymity of small donors, thereby especially chilling the expression rights of those who support controversial causes.
2. The DISCLOSE Act would chill not only express advocacy on political candidates, but also issue advocacy.
3. The DISCLOSE Act imposes impractical requirements on those who wish to communicate using broadcasting messages.
4. The DISCLOSE Act imposes unjust restrictions on contractors, TARP participants and corporations with minimal foreign participation.
Having the ACLU, which actually recently weakened its historically strong support for First Amendment rights in the area of campaign finance, come out and oppose the DISCLOSE Act today cannot be helpful for the “reformers,” especially those trying to desperately spin that it’s only big corporations and conservative special interests that oppose this bill.
In the grand scheme of things, there are people who have had worse days today. Tony Hayward comes immediately to mind. But it’s clear that the “reformers” today had a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.
