Don’t DISCLOSE Me, Bro!
Last Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed H.R. 5175, the “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act”, by a vote of 219 to 206. Like most votes on Capitol Hill these days, the vote was highly partisan; of the 219 “aye” votes, only two were Republicans (Mike Castle of Delaware and Joseph Cao of Louisiana). However, unless you’re extremely plugged into the daily doings of the Congress critters up on the Hill (and if you’re not, I can’t really blame you, so depressing can those doings be), you probably didn’t hear about it, since last week’s political news was dominated by the resignation (firing?) of General McChrystal and the never-ending saga of the Gulf oil spill.
However, if you’re a Tea Party activist (or any kind of activist), you should be very concerned about the passage of H.R. 5175 (abbreviated as the DISCLOSE Act).
First, a little background: The DISCLOSE Act was introduced on April 29th of this year by Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Mr. Van Hollen currently heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The purpose of the Act, according to its supporters, is to correct the grievous error made by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United vs. FEC case earlier this year. This decision struck down a key part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that prevented union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the final 30 days of election campaigns.
The court also ruled that corporations can spend as much as they want to support candidates running for Congress or President. Proponents of the DISCLOSE Act say it will prevent this decision from being abused by requiring corporations and independent entities engaging in electioneering communications to file reports detailing their election-related communications and their donors, so that voters know who is campaigning for whom.
Sounds pretty innocuous, right? We just want to make sure everyone knows who’s playing for which team, don’t we? If only it were that simple.
Before I launch into a list of reasons to oppose DISCLOSE, I want to state up front that I have a dog in this fight: as NC State Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty, I and my organization will be directly affected by this legislation, should it pass.
That being said, a fundamental right in American society is at risk in terms of the privacy of the individual. Individuals who donate to organizations or associations such as Campaign for Liberty (or CAUTION, or a 9/12 group, or Tea Party Express) may find themselves on a government list. These groups would be forced by the government to turn over the names of individuals who contributed toward Internet banner ads (Sec. 105), or issue-based TV and radio ads if those efforts are determined by the federal government to be favoring one candidate over another (Sec 201). This is a critical point: the feds are making the determination. Something as simple as an “Audit the Fed” ad in a targeted district (“Urge Congressman X to join his colleagues in cosponsoring H.R. 1207 today!”) could potentially be construed as trying to influence an election instead of being issue advocacy.
There will be a chilling effect on the free speech of an organization’s members, as the organization will no longer be able to publicly advocate for specific issues (non-interventionism, ballot access, sound money) that could be construed in an election year as supporting or opposing one candidate over another.
And keep in mind that this legislation doesn’t solely target “the rich and powerful.” People who have given as little as $600 could have their information turned over to Uncle Sam. Such a disclosure leaves open the potential for donor intimidation and harassment and would logically result in silencing an organization’s supporters through this massive invasion of privacy. Organizations would likely see a decrease in their donations, thus making them less effective. Additionally, the disclosure requirements would force non-profits to add a layer of otherwise unnecessary bureaucracy that could exponentially increase their operational costs.
The First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” There’s not an awful lot of wiggle room there. However, the federal government is extraordinarily talented at justifying its usurpations by convincing the populace that it’s acting in their interests. Regulators will say: “Why resist DISCLOSE if you have nothing to hide?” For the same reason freedom-loving Americans oppose the PATRIOT Act, warrant-less wiretapping, and a host of other unconstitutional privacy violations. Tyrants have used the statement, “Only the guilty have something to hide” for hundreds of years.
The most objectionable part of the DISCLOSE Act is that it doesn’t treat all advocacy organizations equally; indeed, many are exempt from it altogether. These organizations include the largest labor unions in the United States and the NRA…in fact, pretty much any advocacy organization that has over 1 million members, has been in existence for over 10 years, has members in all 50 states, and which raises 15% or less of its funding from corporations. That’s actually a pretty short list, and neither Campaign for Liberty nor any Tea Party group I’ve heard of is on it. It’s obvious that legislation crafted by the Democrats would benefit the labor unions, which are political allies of theirs. Whether or not the NRA deliberately cut a deal to exempt itself from this bill has been debated hotly, and since no one invited me to those meetings, I will not venture an opinion here. However, I think it’s obvious that the NRA should fight a bill like this, whether it’s exempt from it or not. Slapping cumbersome regulations on all but the largest, best funded, most powerful advocacy groups flies in the face of the notion that all Americans are equal before the law.
One last note: in the bill’s definitions of what counts as “electioneering communication” there is a list of exceptions. These include anything appearing in a news story, an editorial distributed through a broadcasting station, newspaper, or magazine…in short, traditional media. However, two things are not listed as exceptions: blogs and independent online periodicals. That means that independent sites like the Drudge Report, LewRockwell.com, or even our own Pundit House could suddenly find themselves the subjects of strict reporting and disclosure regulation should this bill pass.
Now that the bill is out of the House, the fight moves to the Senate. I urge you (while I still can) to contact Kay Hagan and Richard Burr and urge them to vote NO on the DISCLOSE Act.
——————————–
Adam Love is the NC State Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty. The Mission of Campaign for Liberty is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=2466
