The Left Plans To Squelch Opposing Views--Again

We all have become accustomed to the fact that liberals love freedom of speech so long as the speech agrees with their point of view. Most of the time, when someone outsmarts them on an issue, they turn to their friends in the mainstream media or make threats of going to their friendly leftist judges. But once in awhile, they go all the way and attempt to legislate the First Amendment out of existence.

The Democrats have not been shy about doing everything in their current position of power to shut down any opposition to the statist agenda that now guides that party. That great constitutional scholar, Barack Obama, declared war on the Supreme Court's striking of certain provisions of the McCain/Feingold free speech destruction act in his State of the Union address. Attempts to bypass the Court's decisions have been roiling around in the Democratic ranks ever since. And now they are actually putting their free speech denial ideas before Congress.

Once again using "fair play and openness" as their theme, their attempt to shut down opposing opinion and contrary speech is ludicrously entitled "The Disclose Act." After freeing up unions (no problem) and business interests (big problem) to participate more fully in both issue and candidate campaigns, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United is under direct attack by the left wing of the Democratic Party. The bill is sponsored by Representative Chris Van Hollen in the House and Charles Schumer in the Senate.

Since unions have regularly gotten away with skirting the rules on political participation under McCain/Feingold, the left's ire is aimed entirely at potential conservative views coming from beleaguered businesses being destroyed by the socialist schemes of Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats. The Supreme Court case merely leveled the playing field by freeing up political participation for unions, corporations and individuals.

The legislation was bogging down for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the moderate/conservative resurgence seen in the last couple of rounds of elections. Never hesitant to bribe whomever they could find to gain support from allegedly conservative organizations, the sponsors managed to find a way to carve out an exception for the National Rifle Association (NRA). This would supposedly convince a lot of conservative types that the legislation wasn't all that bad. But the tactic backfired--seriously.

The internet started buzzing very loudly over this obvious self-serving capitulation by the NRA. The NRA would, at least for awhile, be given working room to advance its primary issue of gun ownership without Congressional interference in exchange for supporting legislation which would curtail the free speech of other conservative organizations with issues other than gun control. The NRA decided to dance with the devil, but other major conservative organizations had no intention of paying the piper for the dance.

That misfire caused the Democratic leadership to back off on voting on the proposed legislation. The vote was scheduled to have taken place on June 19, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi pulled it off the agenda at the last minute, recognizing that support had suddenly become dangerous for many of the early proponents. The original plan of attack was to boldly argue that the bill would have required "special interests" to disclose their top donors if they run television ads or mail out information during the final phases of an election. But suddenly the news was out that one organization which had been the object of continuing attack by the left as a "special interest" had been bribed into supporting the legislation.

Here is the actual and incomprehensible wording of the critical part of the proposed act: "This bill shall require that corporations, labor organizations, tax-exempt charitable organizations, and political organizations other than political committees (covered organizations) to include specified additional information in reports on independent expenditures of at least $10,000,including certain actual or deemed transfers of money to other persons, but excluding amounts paid from separate segregated funds as well as amounts designated for specified campaign-related activities." Well, that's clear as mud.

The other key portion creates "restrictions on the use of donated funds and requires any electioneering communication transmitted through radio or television which is paid for by a political committee (including a political committee of a political party), other than a political committee which makes only electioneering communications or independent expenditures consisting of public communications, to include an audio statement identifying the name of the political committee responsible." That means nothing less than that major donors and organization leaders must be identified by name in each ad. Even a speed talker would have trouble limiting that list to a manageable time-frame.

The true underlying purpose of the legislation is to expose supporters of conservative views to harassment and intimidation by burying the organizations in reams of record keeping and reporting requirements. The same tactic was tried on a smaller scale during the early stages of the anti-Proposition 8 litigation, and even a liberal judge found such reporting to be burdensome, unnecessary, and potentially dangerous. Still, a judge's opinion is one thing, Congressional legislation quite another.

Even within the NRA, there has been hostility both toward the proposed legislation and the actions of the Association. Says Cleta Mitchell, an NRA board member, "the true purpose of the Disclose Act is to silence congressional critics in the 2010 general elections." At least a few members of the NRA leadership are not pleased being made part of a bribe at the expense of fellow conservatives.

The onerous reporting and record-keeping requirements implicitly contain threats of future regulation, penalty and negative exposure resulting in what lawyers call "a chill on free speech." The act would not forbid the activity that the Supreme Court decision allowed, it would simply make it so technically difficult for the affected organizations to participate in the political forum that they would have their speech limited through subterfuge rather than a direct attack on their freedom to speak. That's just back door defiance of the ruling in Citizens United.