NRA Officially sucks-up to McCain

Now that John McCain remains as the only Presidential candidate who is not-Obama and not-Hillary, the National Rifle Association has moved within a hair's breadth of endorsing him.

The June 2008 issue of America's First Freedom carries an interview of McCain conducted by Chris Cox (Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action) and the redoubtable Wayne LaPierre (Executive Vice-President of NRA). If you are unfamiliar with this pair, they are the two most highly paid officials of the NRA who are not elected by the membership, and presumably cannot be fired.

I skimmed the article until I found a reference to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, more familiarly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. Yes, that McCain. Here's their question and the Senator's feckless answer, as published:

Senator, you were the chief sponsor of “campaign finance reform” legislation—legislation that, when passed, included a provision that restricts the NRA’s ability to run broadcast ads lobbying on legislative issues in the 60 days before a federal election. Many gun owners believe that this provision severely restricts their ability to participate in the legislative process, and in fact, many believe it to be unconstitutional. Would you explain your motivation behind campaign finance reform, and why the broadcast restriction was included in the final bill?
 
   I fought for campaign finance reform because I strongly believed that prior to the enactment of this legislation, our system of financing campaigns was seriously broken and in need of repair. I genuinely worried that legislative provisions were being passed or defeated based on the size of “soft money “ contributions made by affected interests. I can assure you that my motivation in this effort was directed at these out-of-control amounts of “soft money” that seeped into federal campaigns—not a desire to restrict the ability of gun owners or any other group of citizens from making their voices heard in the legislative process. I am fully committed to defending the constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. 
 

Interestingly, the cutline under the photo heading this article claims that Cox and LaPierre asked McCain some "direct questions," while the table of contents even says they are "tough questions." Damn shame they did not bother with a follow-up.

Compare this against NRA's strong statements over the last few years:

NRA FAX Alert March 22, 2002

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate joined the House in assaulting free speech when it passed H.R. 2356—the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance "Reform" bill—on a vote of 60-40. Congressional opponents to this attack on the First Amendment have vowed to challenge it in the courts, and U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), one of the most vocal opponents of this bill, has already assembled a team of attorneys, including former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, to mount a legal challenge. NRA also remains committed to protecting its ability to exercise free speech and ensuring the privacy of its members, and your Association will fight this assault on the First Amendment all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, if necessary. (emphasis added)

 NRA First to File Constitutional Challenge (Press release Dated March 27, 2002)

JOINT STATEMENT BY WAYNE LAPIERRE , EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA and JAMES JAY BAKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NRA`S INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

(Washington, D.C.) --"Early this morning, President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA"). When the federal courthouse opened for business today, NRA was there – we have filed suit to invalidate this unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment rights of the NRA and our four million members nationwide.

We are proud to be the first plaintiff to formally ask the federal court to invalidate these new limits on the political speech of ordinary citizens because we believe that this law cannot be allowed to stand – not even for a moment.

Sen. Paul Wellstone said on the floor of the United States Senate during the campaign finance debate that it was his intention to silence the NRA. As a direct and intentional target of this law, NRA has no choice but to protect our right to be heard.

NRA has been mentioned by name – but the authors of this law have delivered a clear and straightforward message not only to NRA but to all American citizens. That message is this: ‘Keep your mouths shut.` ‘Stay out of our political debates.` ‘Be quiet.`

Our response is this: the First Amendment protects us from such directives from the government. The First Amendment does not allow Congress to make laws which deny us the right to speak out on issues, the right of our members to associate together on public policy issues and the right to petition our government for redress of grievances. That is what this lawsuit is about.

Through this law Congress has essentially granted speech licenses to giant corporate conglomerates such as Viacom, Disney Corporation and General Electric Company by allowing those corporations unlimited rights to spend money talking about issues and candidates, while silencing the voices of ordinary citizens and citizens groups such as NRA.

Why should corporations such as these media conglomerates, all of which own multiple non-news business enterprises and spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress—why should those corporations be allowed to spend whatever they wish, whenever they wish, saying whatever they wish regarding any issue or candidate – when a non-profit citizens organization such as ours is prohibited from even responding via the broadcast media?

The law imposes severe civil and criminal penalties on citizens who have the audacity to speak out on issues of concern – and we do not believe that the Constitution of the United States of America and the U.S. Supreme Court can possibly allow such a result."

The above, reprinted in part in "Grassroots Alert" volume 9, number 13, March 29, 2002

...under the headline "NRA Files Suit Against Sham Campaign Finance 'Reform' "

Quiet Time Campaign Muzzle (April 1, 2002)

"John McCain is an enemy of the First Amendment." 

Soft Money, Hard Feelings (May 16, 2002)

Links to a George Will column, quoting it thus:

"The document`s title is bland: 'Reply of Senator John McCain, Senator Russell Feingold, Representative Christopher Shays, Representative Martin Meehan, Senator Olympia Snowe, and Senator James Jeffords in support of their motion to intervene as defendants supporting the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.' But the document`s message is fascinating. "File the document under: 'Give them enough rope,' "

Foreign to the First Amendment (July 2, 2002)

Later this year the Supreme Court will be asked to consider the most recent attack on editorial issue advertisements that deal with the conduct of elected officials. The proponents of this new assault are elected officials--namely, Congress. The issue advertising ban in question is contained in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002--frequently referred to as McCain-Feingold, for its legislative sponsors in the Senate. Because this newly minted restriction is inconsistent with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and a free press, the court should reject it.

Free Speech in the Twilight Zone ( November 2, 2002)

A few excerpts:

Americans are facing an Orwellian nightmare--a bottomless pit of regulation and rules, all designed to cut off collective free speech....

This is a ban on a major aspect of grassroots lobbying and has nothing to do with purely political activity. It has nothing to do with directly exhorting the public to vote for or against a candidate....

there is a major exception to the contributor disclosure, granted under two FEC Advisory Opinions in 1996 that "allowed the Socialist Workers Party to withhold the identities of its contributors and persons to whom it had disbursed funds because of a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of the party`s contributors` names would subject them to threats, harassment or reprisals from either government officials or private parties."

So the NRA-PVF has to cough up the names and addresses of contributors who give it more than $200, while the Socialist Workers Party`s funding sources are sealed.

Additionally, the commission boldly took powers never even intended by Congress--powers to regulate what state and local candidates are permitted to say in their paid political advertising....

In his "declaration" filed with the court, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre made the case succinctly.

"The Second Amendment and the NRA are at the center of a culture war LaPierre said. "The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act effectively cedes the entire battlefield in this cultural war to the broadcast media corporations and politicians. It allows federal candidates and the big media conglomerates to say whatever they want about the NRA in the months before an election and shields them from any effective response by prohibiting the NRA from tittering the name of its attackers . . ."

The First Amendment on Trial (December 2, 2002)

...At issue is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, alias McCain-Feingold), by which the just-adjourned 107th Congress followed in the footsteps of the 5th Congress, which enacted the Sedition Act of 1798.

An Appearance of Corruption (5/23/2003)

The Weekly Standard`s David Tell closely examines "the bogus research" undergirding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

A Sad Day for the Constitution (December 12, 2003)

...So noted NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre when, on December 10, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision to uphold the major provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act...

Wayne LaPierre said, "You`re going to have to put an asterisk by the First Amendment, and a footnote, because for many months of the year it`s no longer in effect."  Wayne went on to say, in no uncertain terms, that NRA still has many ways to make its position known in federal elections.  "They didn`t say we couldn`t mention the U.S. Congress, or the Senate. And we will run advertising directing the American public to information sources as to where they can find the truth, and the facts, and who`s for them and who`s against them.  This is a sad day for the Constitution, but the 4 million members of the NRA will continue to be heard.  That I can promise."

In addition to expanding NRA-PVF`s fundraising activities, this, no doubt, will also mean an even greater reliance on the grassroots efforts of our nation`s 65 million gun owners who have answered the call time and again.  One clear advantage NRA has over virtually every other group in America is a large, passionate, and active base of grassroots support that is willing to not only vote on Election Day, but actively work on the campaigns of pro-freedom candidates.  The engine that drives the NRA machine is our grassroots, and you can rest assured in the months ahead, we will refine, improve, and expand our grassroots operations to meet the challenges that now lay before us.  Please keep an eye out on future Grassroots Alerts to find out how you can take on an even more active role in our grassroots activities in this new day and age of campaign restrictions.

Summed up in five words: "Wayne says, 'send more money.' "

Amending an Amendment (Dec. 22, 2003)

Introducing a Rich Tucker commentary at TownHall.com:

...political parties hardly matter anymore, because of another provision of McCain-Feingold. The law also bars them, and unions, interest groups and corporations from running TV ads that mention a specific candidate in the 60 days before a federal election. But if they’re not allowed to engage in politics during the two months before election day (when people might actually be paying attention), why should any of these groups bother engaging in politics at all? Or, maybe, that’s what the incumbent politicians want.

Democrats' Magic Number: 527 (March 10, 2004)

Introducing a MSNBC story:

With the unlimited “soft money” contributions to national political parties ostensibly banned by the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, also known as the McCain-Feingold law), Democrats are counting on their 527 groups, organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, and bankrolled by billionaire currency speculator George Soros, Real Networks CEO Robert Glaser, labor unions, and others.

Standing Guard: A Win for free speech (September 7, 2007)

When Congress enacted this oppressive law, the National Rifle Association, as a grassroots corporation, was singled out for censorship. Our highly acclaimed infomercials were labeled "sham ads" and were targeted for broadcast speech bans.

Without this new ruling, NRA's running an educational broadcast alluding to any candidate for federal office anywhere in the nation during the pre-election blackouts could amount to a federal crime. A broadcast expressing NRA's staunch opposition to a gun ban could be seen by FEC enforcers as indirectly urging Americans to vote against a candidate favoring a firearm ban--say, Hillary Clinton.

So, Wayne & Chris, if I might be so familiar--and as a Life Member of NRA I think it's my right--what's the source of this sudden failure of courage on your part?  If I recall correctly, right after the BCRA was signed into law--and before NRANews.com was created, in the hope it would be considered a legitimate media outlet and therefore unaffected by BCRA--Wayne LaPierre wrote an impassioned letter published in all the NRA monthlies, saying that by God, he'd anchor a ship with a TV transmitter in international waters and broadcast the Truth, if that's what it took.

So why all the kowtowing to McCain in this interview? Unless there is some secret deal being cut, McCain has more to lose by being criticized by NRA than NRA has to lose by not endorsing McCain, or any Presidential candidate in November.

tags: nra  mccain  bcra  mccainfeingold  bipartisan campaign reform act  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit