I figured that a title about campaign finance reform wouldn’t grab too many eyeballs. But telling people about the intended result of this “reform” probably would. I’ve been thinking about this post for a while now, but decided that Dave Kopel’s release of his June First Freedom article on the subject made the issue more relevant for the blog.

There is one key to the Schumer-backed DISCLOSE Act that makes it dangerous for gun owners who want to organize in any meaningful manner: disclosure of all donors/members whose money may have funded independent expenditures to the FEC.

According to The New York Times, a “reform” bill might require advocacy groups (such as NRA) “to identify all their financial donors or set up separate accounts to handle political spending and identify the donors to that account.”

Simply put: If NRA wants to use its general funds from member dues to speak out during election season, then NRA would have to give the federal government a list of every single NRA member.

The FEC donor databases are open to all, and the most user-friendly that makes looking up individuals easy and fast is the database available at OpenSecrets.org. Kopel uses the example that your boss could decide to cross-reference you to find out what you’re up to outside of work hours. At that point, you just have to hope he/she isn’t anti-gun, or you may find yourself in the unemployment line. Even if NRA maintains a separate fund for campaign expenditures, you can’t donate if you value your privacy.

We’re by far not the only issue concerned about these crazy disclosure agreements. The National Right to Life Committee is opposing the bill on the same grounds:

One of those regulations involves NRLC and other pro-life groups having to identify donors publicly anytime it runs communications in certain times that ask people to contact Congress about legislation related to pro-life concerns.

“Our members and supporters have a right to support our public advocacy about important and controversial issues without having their identifying information posted on the Internet, exposing them to harassment or retribution by those who may disagree with their beliefs,” NRLC concluded.

It’s pretty dangerous in some areas of the country to be socially conservative. See the harassment that same-sex marriage opponents faced in California as an exhibit of what pro-lifers – and possibly gun owners – could face.

Even the parts of the bill that aren’t dangerous for gun owners actively try to cut us off at the knees when it comes to political advertising. I’m not opposed to the spirit of an organization head doing a disclaimer as part of a commercial, but as specific as the DISCLOSURE Act is, it limits our options in order to cut our political effectiveness.

NRA advertisements always let you know that they’re paid for by NRA. Sometimes, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre appears as a spokesman in a commercial, while in others, it’s Chris W. Cox, chairman of NRA’s Political Victory Fund and executive director of NRA-ILA. Sometimes, NRA may choose to use someone else entirely. For example, Charlton Heston appeared in many NRA commercials during his long service to the Second Amendment.

The proposal would mean that in 1997, for example, when Heston— one of the most respected men in America—was an NRA officer but not president or CEO, an NRA commercial would have been required to cut the amount of time that Heston had to speak about the issues.

Anything that reduces the time we can put Chris Cox’s face & voice in front of female viewers is a loss for our issue as far as I’m concerned!

In all seriousness, we have a diverse set of powerful leaders we can choose from at this point, and most Americans would probably agree that using any of them would meet the spirit of any disclosure laws. If Tom Selleck wants to get on screen as an NRA board member and talk about NRA-endorsed candidates or the issues at stake in a particular election, I’m sure most people would agree that it’s plenty transparent.

Politically, Congress still knows we can raise some hell on this issue. The House sponsor sat down with NRA recently to try and figure out their concerns, and they are specifically worried about last minute lobbying blitzes. It would seem that the pro-life groups and the Chamber of Commerce are planning to score the vote – and I suspect that the final product will determine whether or not NRA scores the vote. (If they do, Democrats may lose the votes they claim to have to pass it in the House.)

The Chamber has particular concerns about how this bill favors unions above other corporations:

For example, companies with government contracts worth $50,000 or more and those with foreign ownership would be banned from funding political ads and engaging in other campaign-related activity. The business group believes unions that receive federal grants, have collective bargaining agreements with the government or have international affiliates should be subject to similar limits.

Eugene Scalia, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and counsel to the Chamber, said the Disclose Act does not balance restrictions on corporations and unions equally, as previous campaign finance reform bills have.

“This bill is a departure from that tradition,” he said.

This is one of the reasons the NRLC argued the bill name should really stand for “Deterring Independent Speech about Congress except by Labor Organizations and Selected Elites.”

Right now, the bill has been postponed in the House. The committee vote was down party lines, and all efforts to make this bill more fair have been turned down based on party affiliation.

The intentional partisanship and one-sided nature of this was demonstrated by the defeat of a series of amendments in the committee mark-up that were proposed by Republicans. This included an amendment by Rep. Dan Lungren (R., Calif.) that would have extended the prohibition on government contractors to any unions that have representational contracts with the government, as well as an amendment by Rep. Gregg Harper (R., Miss.) that would have extended the same ban to any other recipient of government grants, such as the liberal groups that receive so many federal earmarks and other funds. When Lungren tried to extend the political activity ban on corporations with foreign shareholders or corporate directors to unions that receive dues from foreign nationals, that was also rejected.

This bill has got to go down in defeat. NRA is a one-issue organization, but they also look out for our ability to talk about that issue with the public during election season. Because many people who aren’t paid members receiving the magazine pay attention to NRA’s messaging, any effort to silence their efforts will only hurt gun rights on Election Day.

However, one thing you’ll rarely find in politics is a true believer. That doesn’t mean hope is lost. There are arguments to be made that Bloomberg brings baggage.

1. Make the mayor aware that Bloomberg signed his/her name to an ad that was run in both the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Philadelphia Inquirer opposing a bipartisan federal concealed carry amendment that carried 58 votes in the Senate. Ask if the mayor approved the ad and gave permission for their name to be attached. Also ask the mayor if he/she gave approval for the USA Today ad that says law-abiding concealed carry permit holders “threaten the safety of our police officers.” The ad also says that allowing such permit holders the cross state borders will “undoubtedly result in the deaths of more innocent Americans.”
2. If challenged, politely point out that his/her name is specifically included on ads. Perhaps offer to fax a copy of the ads or email a copy to the mayor. Highlight or circle the name for good measure.
3. In fact, you might want to ask if any local tax dollars contributed toward paying for the ads. You might also ask if any tax dollars or city services are contributed toward the other programs Bloomberg is running within the coalition. Ask if local money has funded any trips to meet with him or federal officials in regards to Second Amendment issues. With more than half a million of us, it’s a reasonable question to which other gun owners in the town would love to know the answer.
4. Also inquire about the letters sent to Congress on concealed carry and other federal issues. If they mayor doesn’t know what you’re talking about, point out that all of the coalition mayors signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi condemning concealed carry across the country. Ask why he/she personally believes that the existence of your concealed carry permit makes you a gun trafficker, as the letter implies. Find out if your mayor endorses the position of revoking Constitutional rights without due process via the terror watch list. Take your favorite quotes and ask if he/she endorses them. Ask about current activities the mayor is involved in at the federal level, and if he/she plans to keep the town’s residents informed of these activities. If they don’t support these actions, suggest that rather than having the Mayor of NYC attribute these statements, they might consider leaving the organization.
5. Politely let the mayor know that a decision to leave is not one that will hurt him/her. First, gun control supporters don’t vote on that issue, but gun owners do. Second, they will join a list of mayors, include recent dropouts from Ohio and Texas (Houston, no less!). Previous Pennsylvania mayors have also dropped out, arguing that the coalition was not as presented, “I have learned that the coalition may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership, and that some actions on your behalf are dubious.” Even New Jersey mayors have removed themselves after find out what Bloomberg was doing in their name, “Regrettably, it has become abundantly clear to me that you are using this coalition of mayors to advance a hidden agenda of bringing lawsuits against members of the firearms industry and spreading anti-gun propaganda.”

If the mayor doesn’t make any promises, have family members or shooting buddies call in the next few days. Spread the word around the local range. Start with phone calls and/or emails asking pointed (and polite!) questions about their involvement. Do it as a concerned citizen, not simply a gun owner.

The next step before the ballot box might be letters to the editor, particularly if you have a town newspaper. The smaller, the better in many cases. The small papers eat stuff like this up! A letter to the editor may inspire questions from the paper. A little local controversy is always good for readership. (One angle would be to press the tax dollar/time contributed line of questions first. In this economy, there’s no room for wasting time or money on these issues at the local level of government.)

Remember, the goal is to reduce Bloomberg’s sphere of influence. If the mayor is willing to leave the group, say thank you! Ask for verification, or if they might be willing to share the notification letter with you so you can pass it along to other gun owners. Be willing to accept that some people really didn’t understand what they were signing on to with this group. While it can legitimately be argued they should have done their homework, there’s more peer pressure in Pennsylvania than anywhere else in the country. Let’s make sure they remember that constituents are more important than government peers.

Countering the waves of anti-rights news, quotes, and material in local publications is much easier than you think. Here are a few tips to keep in mind to help you get published:

1. Read the news or article carefully before you write your letter, and check your facts. As scholar David Kopel says, “The more that you hold yourself to standards of absolute certainty for every fact you mention, the greater your long-term credibility.” You can be published more than once, though there’s often a waiting period between published letters of 30 days or more in individual newspapers in order to give more people a voice on the editorial pages. If they consistently see quality work from you, even if they don’t run every letter, you increase your overall chances of being published.
2. Letters to the editor shouldn’t be any longer than 150 words. The shorter letters provide more flexibility as they lay the page out for publication.
3. Be clear. Be concise.
4. Try to present a solution or say something else proactive about the topic at hand. If you’re just objecting, it’s less likely to get published.
5. Make every effort to supply a source if reciting facts. Including the URL for the source will also be helpful for editors who may want to confirm it.
6. Tie in a local angle if you can think of a relevant one to the story. Remind readers subtly that you are their neighbor.
7. Use spell check. Have another person read it for clarity and grammar. (If you’re active as a commenter on pro-gun blogs or forums, ask a fellow reader to assist you in refining your language.) Editors won’t take the time to edit your letter. If it requires something more than adding a comma, you can be sure they will not publish it.
8. Include your name, email address, real address (at least the city), and a phone number. If they can call you to approve publishing, they can get it printed in an earlier edition.
9. Send it to the email address listed in the letters to the editor section. Targeting your letter to the right division means it won’t be as likely to get deleted.
10. Act quickly! Don’t wait a week before responding to an article. If at all possible, respond on the same day, or the next day. Stories only stay “newsworthy” for a limited time in today’s 24-hour news cycle.
11. Don’t get frustrated too quickly. If your letter is not accepted, try again another day and on another topic.
12. The most important rule is to be polite. You may be frustrated, but always remain friendly. Rather than calling someone a liar, consider that they are instead “misguided in his/her mission.” You want to present gun owners as we are: friendly, approachable, and reasonable folks.

Never underestimate the power of a letter to the editor in favor of a pro-Second Amendment candidate or highlighting the negative record of a gun banning politician. It’s similar to ad space in the editorial pages that cannot be bought. It is a reflection of true grassroots voter sentiment.