ACLU Opposes DISCLOSE Act

[Pertinacious Tom]

ACLU Opposes DISCLOSE Act
 

...

But even with all the good H.R. 1 would do, if enacted in its current form, it would unconstitutionally infringe on the speech and associational rights of many public interest organizations and American citizens. It is incumbent upon the drafters of H.R. 1 to correct these issues.  

Take for instance the DISCLOSE Act, which is part of H.R. 1 and is intended to create fairer elections through a more informed electorate. We applaud this goal and support requiring organizations to report spending for public communications, such as TV ads, that expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate for office. 

But, as currently drafted, the DISCLOSE Act would go beyond that. It would regulate communications that merely mention a candidate for office if the election is near. It would also regulate communications that “support, promote, attack, or oppose” the election of a candidate. These standards are unclear and entirely subjective, which will lead to confusion and, ultimately, less speech.

...

So if a non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation like, for example, Citizens United Inc (or ACLU Inc or NAACP Inc) decided to broadcast some propaganda mentioning a candidate, the law would make that illegal. And for some reason, the ACLU has a problem with this.

I do too and applaud them for saying so.

 

[mikewof]

You support the ACLU now, Normy?

Welcome to the lefty journalist clusterfuck, Normy. I can show you around. Take it easy with the chocolate almond milk, it tastes good, but it might give you wicked indigestion if you have too much of it.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

You support the ACLU now, Normy?

Welcome to the lefty journalist clusterfuck, Normy. I can show you around.

OK, start by replying to my post supporting them on foreign policy.

Move on to my comments about their support for the NRA against Governor Cuomo.

Then get back to my comments on their support for arming crazy people.

Or back to my 2015 comments on their support for arming terrorists.

A non sarcastic answer to your question would be: I have been a supporter for a lot longer than I have been here and don't really need you to get around to showing me the light on posts I've been making for years.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Do you support the ACLU's defense of corporate $peech now, on this issue, Cliffy?

I know it's not as interesting as I am, but it is the thread topic and I'm not.

 

[mikewof]

OK, start by replying to my post supporting them on foreign policy.

Move on to my comments about their support for the NRA against Governor Cuomo.

Then get back to my comments on their support for arming crazy people.

Or back to my 2015 comments on their support for arming terrorists.

A non sarcastic answer to your question would be: I have been a supporter for a lot longer than I have been here and don't really need you to get around to showing me the light on posts I've been making for years.

Jeez, even cataloging your posts Normy!

You might think you're a Libertarian, your customers might think you're a Libertarian, and your fiends might think you're a Libertarian.

But to the Libertarians, you're no Libertarian Normy. You're a lefty. Wait here for a bit, I'll bring you a bagel and grapefruit half. Us lefties love a good bagel and grapefruit. It's our morning crack.

 

[mikewof]

Do you support the ACLU's defense of corporate $peech now, on this issue, Cliffy?

I know it's not as interesting as I am, but it is the thread topic and I'm not.

I rarely find anything on which I don't support the ACLU.

Asking an ex-journalist if he or she supports an ACLU project is like asking a housecat if he supports the consumption of canned tunafish.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Jeez, even cataloging your posts Normy!

Scot's database does that for me. I just know how to search for ACLU and NRA in posts by me.

Another fun one: search for the phrase "disclose act" in posts by me. Yes, it's still a major reason I'm not an NRA member.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

So if a non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation like, for example, Citizens United Inc (or ACLU Inc or NAACP Inc) decided to broadcast some propaganda mentioning a candidate, the law would make that illegal.

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DISCLOSE Act of 2018 For Intro.pdf

Text of the bill.

My statement is incorrect in two ways: the contributions wouldn't necessarily be illegal if reported properly.

But the funny way is: the law specifically exempts 501c(3) corporations. With such an exemption Citizens United Inc could have broadcast their propaganda within the limits of that section.

NOT exempt: pre$$ corporations. And a whole lot of what they do looks a lot like it falls within the "electioneering communications" described by this version of the act.

Basically, pre$$ corporations would have to file a report prior to most broadcasts.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

ACLU press release on the topic

In addition to voting rights, we also support a voluntary system of public campaign financing that would provide sufficient support for all eligible candidates to mount viable campaigns. H.R. 1 would take important steps to creating just that, including by matching small dollar contributions to federal candidates’ campaigns at 600 percent. The ACLU has long championed and fought for these reforms, and we will continue to work with Congress to design legislation that achieves them. 

There's nothing voluntary about tax dollars financing something.
 

This is further compounded by another provision, the Stand by Every Ad Act. This provision would require certain organizations to display their top five donors on every “campaign-related” video ad and to state their top two donors with every “campaign-related” audio ad. 

Let’s play this one out.

Consider a multi-issue organization like the ACLU. Our work, like the work of other multi-issue organizations, often brings together odd bedfellows. 

For example, someone who might donate to the ACLU because of our advocacy on criminal justice reform, an issue that appeals to both conservative- and liberal-leaning reformers, may not necessarily support our work on other issues. However, if that individual’s donation were sizable enough to earn them a spot on ACLU’s top five donors’ list, their name would, by law, need to be prominently displayed on every “campaign-related” ad regardless of whether they are aware of the ad — or even support it.

The DISCLOSE Act and Stand by Every Ad Act together will have one of two pernicious effects on affected organizations. First, donors could choose not to give to organizations, even if they support their messages, or could be forced to give less than they otherwise might. Second, labor unions and advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood may choose to self-censor out of fear of crossing the DISCLOSE Act’s vaguely-defined line between what constitutes "campaign-related" communications and pure issue advocacy that refers to candidates for office.

If organizations do choose to speak, they may find themselves subject to onerous and intrusive disclosure requirements, including publishing the names and addresses of donors regardless of whether that donor supported or even knew about the communications that triggered the publication of their name. This could be especially burdensome for small organizations that cannot afford the compliance costs. 

Other organizations may simply refuse to breach the trust that donors expecting anonymity have placed in them. Under either of these results, our public discourse is less vibrant, less diverse, and less informed. In short, the First Amendment loses.

The bolded bit is true of all cen$or$hip and other campaign regulations. The Duopoly parties and organizations have teams of lawyers and accountants to devote to compliance. Libertarians typically have someone's nephew who is pretty good at math. They face the same reporting requirements, because that's a level playing field.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

phillysailor and Fah Kiew Tu reacted to this

Da fack?

I make one off topic post and that's the good one?

 

[justsomeguy!]

If you live for recognition, perhaps you've stumbled upon something.

We do what we do just to see our reflection...

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

ACLU Letter To Congress

The upshot of the DISCLOSE Act, and the essence of why we oppose it, is that it would chill the speech of issue advocacy groups and non-profits such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, or the NRA that is essential to our public discourse and protected by the First Amendment.

As I keep saying, acquiring the ACLU was one of the smartest things the NRA ever did.

 

[justsomeguy!]

ACLU Letter To Congress

As I keep saying, acquiring the ACLU was one of the smartest things the NRA ever did.

Where's the purple font? 

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

More from the letter to Congress:

Quote
The Constitution requires a healthy respect for associational privacy. In NAACP v. Alabama, the Supreme Court recognized that “nviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.” For that reason alone, we should be very cautious when contemplating invasions of that privacy.

Hmmm... back to Scot's database...

Quote





Showing results for 'naacp alabama' in content posted in Political Anarchy and posted by Importunate Tom.

On 10/24/2017 at 12:18 PM, Importunate Tom said:





We have lots of rules about disclosure. That's where sites like Open Secrets get the info in the topic post.





I remain a fan but not as YUGE a fan as I once was. Two reasons: more rules just create a larger industry dedicated to getting around those rules for the Duopoly and make competition that much harder for my elk.





The other reason I came across when looking at precedent cases for Citizens United. Specifically, NAACP v Alabama.





An interesting case, decided based on the idea that revealing that you were an NAACP member could be extremely hazardous to your health in 1950's Alabama. 





 

The bolded bits are expressing the same concern, they're just less blunt about it.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

More from the letter...

Does anyone there think that Sean Hannity's show is made

in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of a candidate?

Seems that way to me.

Under the bill, entities might be deemed to have coordinated when their communications merely refer to a candidate or an opponent of a candidate 120 days before a general election or 60 days before a primary or caucus. The problems with this language are similar to those we have already expressed about electioneering communications in the context of the DISCLOSE Act; however, in this context, the consequences are far more severe. If communications that merely refer to a candidate can be deemed to be coordinated, they are treated as donations and subject to restrictive speech limitations that go beyond donor disclosure.

So I should un-correct my previous correction. There are cen$or$hip provisions in addition to the di$clo$ure ones.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Toward the end of the letter to Congress:

Lobbying is another word for petitioning the government to effect changes in law and policy and the Supreme Court has held that such speech is fully-protected by the First Amendment.

Another synonym: $peaking.

 

[justsomeguy!]

There you go again...

 

[mikewof]

ACLU Letter To Congress

As I keep saying, acquiring the ACLU was one of the smartest things the NRA ever did.

Do you actually believe that, or are you making a joke? I can't tell with you sometimes, and you refuse to use the purple font.

You are obviously not a lefty, that is now obvious. If you were a lefty you would understand why the ACLU does things like defend the NRA. It's not the message, it's the act of making a message.

That's what you Second Amendment ladies and gentlemen may never really understand about why us First Amendment folks do the things we do. We treasure the process of dissent, of disagreement, or not really knowing the right answer all the time, of trying and failing. That's a fundamental lefty approach that that righties may never understand. We fully understand that we don't have all the answers, and we're endlessly amused by people who think they do have the answers ... but even more than being amused, we want to make sure that you have the right and inclination to keep exploring ideas.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

why us First Amendment folks do the things we do. We treasure the process of dissent, of disagreement, or not really knowing the right answer all the time, of trying and failing.

How about the freedom of association, as in NAACP vs Alabama?

That's a First Amendment thingy too, isn't it?

You seem to have lots of thoughts (baseless, of course) about what I might think.

Do you have any thoughts at all on things unrelated to me, like the ACLU's position on the DISCLOSE Act and other parts of HR 1? Or even NAACP v Button?