Litigation

NRA Deal ?Backfires,? Vote Put Off on Disclosure

By Peter Hardin

After cutting a deal with the National Rifle Association, Democratic House leaders witnessed a backlash over a bill to require greater disclosure by special interests of their funding for campaign advertising.

As a result, Democrats retreated and canceled plans for the House to vote Friday on the legislation. The bill’s future was unclear. A Washington Post headline trumpeted, “Disclose Act in jeopardy after interest groups balk at NRA deal.” A Politico headline announced, “How Dems’ NRA Loophole Backfired.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pulled the disclosure bill after complaints were voiced by groups of unhappy House Democrats on opposite sides of the issue.

Cconservative Blue Dog Democrats  were concerned over the opposition by business groups; and members of the Congressional Black Caucus were displeased with the exemption for the NRA (see earlier Gavel Grab post) and wary how the bill might affect the NAACP and other civil rights groups.

The bill was fashioned to blunt the impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in January. By week’s end, however, the Democrats’ maneuvering to overcome initial opposition by the NRA was sparking unflattering commentary, like this lead sentence in a New York Times article:

“Congressional Democrats are pushing hard for legislation to rein in the power of special interests by requiring more disclosure of their roles in paying for campaign advertising ? but as they struggle to find the votes they need to pass it they are carving out loopholes for, yes, special interests.”

State legislatures, meanwhile, continued efforts to craft their own responses to Citizens United. In Tennessee, the House passed and sent to the governor’s desk a bill requiring corporations to disclose their political expenditures, according to a Knoxville News-Sentinel blog post.

When the Supreme Court issued its decision,  Justice at Stake said the ruling posed grave dangers to America?s elected state courts. You can read the JAS statement by clicking here, or click here to see the JAS amicus brief in the case; you can visit Gavel Grab to learn how state legislators and executive branch officials have responded.

Full post as published by The Gavel on June 18, 2010 (boomark / email).