|
Quick
Links
Home
Abortion
Stem
Cell Research & Cloning
Partial
Birth Abortion
Assisted
Suicide, Euthanasia
|
|
Press Release
Nevada
Coalition Opposes DISCLOSE ACT as Un-American Abridgment
of Freedom of Speech
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 13, 2010
CONTACT: CHUCK MUTH Citizen
Outreach (702) 481-0869, or JANINE HANSEN Nevada Eagle
Forum (775)
397-6859
The First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is
very clear: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the
freedom of speech.”
A coalition of Nevada public
advocacy groups has written a letter to Senators Harry
Reid and John Ensign asking them to oppose the DISCLOSE
ACT (HR 5175) a bill which has already passed the House
by a vote of 219-206.
The letter is included
below. As we note,
The DISCLOSE ACT
is a direct threat to political free speech of both
express and issue advocacy groups to communicate with
their supporters and the public about office holders,
candidates and issues.
The DISCLOSE ACT will have a
chilling effect by discouraging certain advocacy groups
from communicating about officeholders by exposing
citizens who support such efforts to harassment and
intimidation, and by smothering organizations in layer
upon layer of record keeping and reporting requirements,
all backed by the threat of civil and criminal
sanctions.
This makes the DISCLOSE ACT
fundamentally un-American.
The DISCLOSE ACT would intimidate
donors by making some appear in ads and posting their
personal information on the internet.
The ACLU says those “names
disclosed
would be subject to personal, political, or commercial
impacts – something (the U.S. Supreme Court decision)
NAACP v. Alabama clearly
protects against.”
The DISCLOSE ACT
also discriminates against grass roots advocacy groups
by exempting unions and the NRA.
It requires groups to turn
over donor and membership lists. Proponents of the
DISCLOSE ACT say that their target is large
corporations, but the bill makes no distinction between
for profit and non-profit corporations or between large
and small corporations-except where it exempts a few
large centralized corporations.
Many issue advocacy groups
are incorporated and this bill will have a chilling
effect on their advocacy and free speech.
The DISCLOSE ACT
would add 90 more pages to 800 pages of federal laws and
regulations governing “political” speech.
There are 1200 pages in the
Federal Register explaining its decisions.
Since the ACT
takes effect within 30 days of being signed into law,
there will be no chance for judicial review, or to write
regulations to guide groups on how to proceed, creating
another chilling effect on free speech.
All of this substantially
increases the price of free speech.
Harry Reid
promises to press for a vote in July.
Reid is in a tough fight for
re-election and will benefit from the DISCLOSE ACT
because it shields his record from scrutiny from
advocacy groups.
The DISCLOSE ACT is an
un-American, unconstitutional abridgment of free speech
and must be defeated.
Coalition Letter On DISCLOSE ACT HR 51
Dear Senator,
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States is very clear: “Congress shall make no law…
abridging the freedom of speech.” We the undersigned,
representing our Nevada organizations oppose and ask you
to oppose the DISCLOSE ACT, HR 5175, which was recently
passed by the House of Representatives.
The DISCLOSE ACT is a direct threat to political free
speech of both express and issue advocacy groups to
communicate with their supporters and the public about
office holders, candidates and issues. The DISCLOSE ACT
will have a chilling effect by discouraging certain
advocacy groups from communicating about officeholders
by exposing citizens who support such efforts to
harassment and intimidation, and by smothering
organizations in layer upon layer of record keeping and
reporting requirements, all backed by the threat of
civil and criminal sanctions. This makes the DISCLOSE
ACT fundamentally un-American.
Not only is the DISCLOSE ACT a threat to many groups, it
is discriminatory and written to benefit one side. The
DISCLOSE ACT provides preferential treatment to powerful
unions which are exempt from the same reporting and
suffocating disclosure requirements of smaller grass
root groups. Proponents of the DISCLOSE ACT say that
their target is large corporations, but the bill makes
no distinction between for profit and non-profit
corporations or between large and small
corporations-except where it exempts a few large
centralized corporations. Many issue advocacy groups are
incorporated and this bill will have a chilling effect
on their advocacy and free speech. The fact that the act
would take place only 30 days from being signed into law
means that the FEC will have no chance to create
regulations to guide organizations on how to proceed.
Where there is any uncertainty, groups will be acting at
their own peril. This creates another chilling effect on
political free speech.
An exemption carved out for the NRA and a few other
large centralized corporations is worthless for most
groups. One set of criteria in the exemption is that the
organization have “1 million or more dues-paying members
in the prior calendar year, that had members in each of
the 50 states…” This further discriminates against
groups like all of ours. What advocacy group in Nevada
could possibly have one million dues paying members in
their organization, much less members in all fifty
states, to exempt them from these limitations on free
speech and the harassment that would come to its donors
who would have their names and addresses posted on the
internet? This gives larger powerful groups an unfair
advantage over smaller ones “to petition the
Government.”
Among the threatening and chilling requirements would be
that our groups turn over our membership and donor lists
to the FEC. This would destroy the anonymity of small
donors and those who choose to contribute to
organizations engaged in controversial issues. It would
require that we list top funders in political
communications and have their names and addresses posted
on the internet. As the ACLU notes, the result would be
to deter organizations “from engaging in public
communications that would subject its donors to
disclosure… and donors sensitive to public disclosure
might refrain from giving to the organization.” In both
cases “organization’s ability to engage in speech will
have been curtailed.” The ACLU says “in both cases,
those whose names are disclosed would be subject to
personal, political, or commercial impacts – something
NAACP v. Alabama clearly protects against.”
It is no wonder Senator Chuck Schumer says "The
deterrent effect should not be underestimated." (The
Influence Industry: Disclose Act could deter involvement
in elections May 13, 2010). 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.
THE DISCLOSE ACT would also expand the "electioneering
communications" period to 30 days before a primary and
120 days before a general election including asking a
representative to vote a certain way or asking citizens
to ask the representative to do the same. That takes two
more months out of an election year in which we are
subject to special requirements backed by the threat of
civil and criminal penalties. The ACLU notes that if an
"issue happens to be on the legislative schedule during
this new expanded period, such advocacy organizations
are effectively denied the use of a major communications
tool in seeking to advance their priorities."
Earlier we quoted the first amendment: “Congress shall
make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” In a May
19th letter to the Committee on House Administration,
eight past members of the FEC wrote, “the FEC now has
differing regulations for 33 types of contributions and
speech and 71 different types of speakers.” There are
over 800 pages of federal laws and regulations governing
“political” speech. There are more than 1,200 pages in
the Federal Register explaining its decisions. H.R. 5175
would add 90 more pages of limitations on free speech
about office holders, candidates and pending
legislation. This would exponentially raise the cost of
free speech and the right to petition our government.
The DISCLOSE ACT aims to silence political speech by
intimidation and onerous regulation. Such efforts should
be rejected swiftly. Thus, on behalf of the many
Nevadans we represent, we urge you to reject this
un-American and discriminatory assault on free speech by
opposing the DISCLOSE ACT.
Sincerely,
Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach
Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum
Melissa Clement, Nevada Right to Life
Debbie Landis, Action is Brewing
Don Nelson, Nevada LIFE
Richard Ziser, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Eric Odom, Liberty First PAC
John Wagner, Independent American Party
Lynn Chapman, Nevada Families
30- |
