Special Treatment for the NRA?

[Uncayimmy]

My niece and nephew, being politically minded, posted this, which is how I found out about it.
4qTjv4D7byU

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007963-503544.html
On Monday, news broke that House Democrats had brokered a deal with the National Rifle Association to get the powerful gun lobbying group to drop its opposition to a piece of legislation designed to address the Supreme Court's controversial Citizen's United decision allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign advertizing.

The proposed deal announced Monday exempts from such requirement groups with more than one million members and no more than 15 percent corporate funding who don't pay for political activity with corporate funds, among other requirements. That's a category that the NRA, and perhaps no other group, falls into. The NRA reportedly agreed to drop its opposition to the legislation in exchange for the exemption.

I've been away from Maryland for over a decade now, but I didn't expect this kinda crap from them. From my new state of Arizona? Sure. Shame on Van Hollen.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I heard about this on NPR today.

Since they couldn't explicitly exempt just the NRA, they used these other criteria which may well also allow unions to be exempt (but not corporations).

I suspect this will be changed substantially before it gets very far in the legislative process.

[The Painter]

That's a category that the NRA, and perhaps no other group, falls into.

Really??? What about the AARP?

a piece of legislation designed to address the Supreme Court's controversial Citizen's United decision allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign advertizing.

This will not pass. Politicians live for these kind of donations, and these will be big. Even Obama in his campaign vowed not to take corporate money, and in the end he did. He took lots of it.

[WildCat]

Really??? What about the AARP?
Because the NRA is evil, but the AARP is pure as the driven snow.

[Uncayimmy]

Really??? What about the AARP?

The AARP does not participate in electoral activity.

[WildCat]

The AARP does not participate in electoral activity.
Uh, what?

[rwguinn]

Uh, what?
I thin the distinction is that the citizens who make up the NRA, decided at one point that simply speaking as a large group of citizens with a single interest (firearms) was not sufficient, and spun off a PAC, the Institute for Legislative Action, which is funded by members of the NRA. This is a true political lobby, and can engage in legal lobbying activities, while the NRA itself continues to be a group of citizens with concerns who have banded together to act as a single voice. The citizen members of AARP have not done this, and so AARP is limited in what it can do.

[Uncayimmy]

Uh, what?

Uh, according to the AARP spokespeson:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/nra-exemption-expanded-in_n_615955.html
"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."

[applecorped]

Is it according to anyone outside AARP?

[thaiboxerken]

Of course the NRA gets special exemptions. They have guns!

[thaiboxerken]

Is it according to anyone outside AARP?

Can you name any AARP endorsed candidates? How about any candidates the AARP has condemned?

[WildCat]

Can you name any AARP endorsed candidates? How about any candidates the AARP has condemned?
No, they support issues, you see... and nice job moving the goalpost from "electoral activity".

TNrUAve-opU

SqANQQQno3g

[Uncayimmy]

No, they support issues, you see... and nice job moving the goalpost from "electoral activity".

TNrUAve-opU

SqANQQQno3g

AARP is not affected by the DISCLOSE Act because they do not participate in electoral activity. Nobody said they don't support issues. The two are not the same.

[WildCat]

AARP is not affected by the DISCLOSE Act because they do not participate in electoral activity. Nobody said they don't support issues. The two are not the same.
How is openly supporting or opposing a proposition decided by an election not electoral activity?

[KoihimeNakamura]

A W.. You know, I can see how it's not directly an electoral activity, but it's pretty close to one.

[Beerina]

Many people who want to shut corporations up are upset about "loopholes" where they can advocate an issue instead of a candidate. Correctly, everyone knows any issue worth its salt is favored or opposed loudly by particular candidates.

The greater flaw is not that they are crypto-endorsing a particular candidate, but that some people think it's wrong to endorse (or oppose) a candidate directly to begin with.

[MikeMangum]

The AARP does not participate in electoral activity.

That sure comes across as a confident, declarative statement of fact. Unfortunately, it is incorrect.

The AARP was probably the single largest purchaser of ads in favor of the recent health care bill, for instance. They still have the "Divided We Fail (http://www.aarp.org/issues/dividedwefail/)" page up on their web site. The AARP has run ads in favor of the financial regulation package, as an even more recent example.

AARP
Divided We Fail
In early 2007 AARP launched "Divided We Fail," designed to address health care and long-term financial security. The initiative was launched with Business Roundtable and the Service Employees International Union, and encompasses advertising in national outlets and in the primary states, online activities, and traditional grassroots work, in order to engage the public, business and elected officials in the debate, and to encourage public leaders to offer solutions, according to the AARP.[12] Nancy LeaMond, executive officer for social impact, said, "We want to really get to these candidates and ask for action, answers and accountability on these questions."[13]

In November 2007, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) joined the Divided We Fail leadership.[14]

The initiative uses an "elephonkey" mixed animal as its symbol, with the head and forelegs of the Republican elephant and the ears, hindquarters, and tail of the kicking Democratic donkey. "Champ" quickly became a recognizable symbol of the Divided We Fail initiative, fostered in part by television commercials that ran across the country. In addition, Divided We Fail Florida incorporated the initiative's mascot into an interactive educational vehicle, dubbed the "Champmobile," which traveled across the state and throughout the United States encouraging voters to "Let your voice be heard!"

Future Champions
In February 2007, AARP announced the launch of a new advertising campaign designed to address issues that will impact future generations and showcase the AARP brand. The campaign, called “Future Champions,” features children talking about the state of healthcare and financial security. The multigenerational focus is designed to reinforce the AARP's Divided We Fail coalition.[15]

Does the AARP make contributions directly to candidates? No, it cannot. Nor can any other non profit organization.

[MikeMangum]

Can you name any AARP endorsed candidates? How about any candidates the AARP has condemned?

Well, since no non-profit organization can do either of those things, that must mean that they have no political impact at all and do not engage in electoral politics in any way. Except for the lobbying. And the issue ads. And the e-mails and calls to their members to "keep [issue X] in mind when voting", etc.

The only major non-profit that has (borderline) done those sorts of things you mention is the NAACP (they didn't endorse, they condemned), and it was threatened with losing tax exempt status because of it.

[Uncayimmy]

How is openly supporting or opposing a proposition decided by an election not electoral activity?

This thread is about exemptions to the DISCLOSE Act. The AARP is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, and is not allowed to endorse or appear to endorse candidates. The IRS has an advisory statement (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html) about that. The NRA is a 501(c)(4) organization, and they are permitted to lobby for legislation and participate in political campaigns.

If you have evidence of activity that the AARP would be covered by the act were it not for the exemption under discussion, then by all means show it. However, if you're just looking to argue whether lobbying for/against a proposition decided in an election is or is not "electoral activity" outside of the context of this bill and exemption, I'll decline to engage you.

[Uncayimmy]

Well, since no non-profit organization can do either of those things, that must mean that they have no political impact at all and do not engage in electoral politics in any way. Except for the lobbying. And the issue ads. And the e-mails and calls to their members to "keep [issue X] in mind when voting", etc.

The only major non-profit that has (borderline) done those sorts of things you mention is the NAACP (they didn't endorse, they condemned), and it was threatened with losing tax exempt status because of it.

You are either wrong or using imprecise language. The NRA is a 501(c)(4) non-profit, and they are expressly permitted to intervene in political campaigns. Look it up.

[Uncayimmy]

That sure comes across as a confident, declarative statement of fact. Unfortunately, it is incorrect.

The AARP was probably the single largest purchaser of ads in favor of the recent health care bill, for instance. They still have the "Divided We Fail (http://www.aarp.org/issues/dividedwefail/)" page up on their web site. The AARP has run ads in favor of the financial regulation package, as an even more recent example.

AARP


Does the AARP make contributions directly to candidates? No, it cannot. Nor can any other non profit organization.

I don't mean to be a pedant, but I deliberately chose the term "electoral activities" in the context of the DISCLOSE Act. Laws are not really elected in the common use of the word. Propositions and referendums, which are usually voted upon on the same day as elections are done so for convenience, but that doesn't make them elections. It's a vote on legislation.

The DISCLOSE Act does not cover issue advertisements unless they are interpreted as favoring or disfavoring a candidate, for lack of better terms. There are countless pages of laws, advisories and court decisions defining what constitutes making a statement about a candidate in terms of being elected to office, so there's not really a single word or phrase I can use.

If you want to engage in a debate about the meaning of "electoral activities" outside of the DISCLOSE Act, you can do so without me. As I said in another post, I know that the AARP takes positions on legislation. That doesn't mean they are affected by DISCLOSE.