"Snag" wrote in message
...
Shall not be infringed wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:28 am, edspyhill01 wrote:
On Jun 19, 6:45 am, Cliff
wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10/06/17/AR201...
[
....
The bill would require corporations, unions and nonprofit groups to
disclose their top five donors if they participate in political
activity and to agree to other disclosures in connection with
expenditures prior to elections. The bill and a similar measure in
the Senate are aimed at countering a Supreme Court ruling that
unleashed unlimited political spending by corporations.

The NRA had threatened to muster its formidable lobbying power
against the legislation unless it was exempted from key donor
disclosure requirements. ....
]

Do as we say, give us what we want, or we'll shoot you.

Time will tell who that quote is atributed to.

$1 says it's not the NRA.

As a matter of fact , there was an email from the folks at the NRA in my
inbox today . You idiots are seriously twisting what the NRA's position on
this matter really is .

I got the e-mail, too. It's a nice PR job!

There is legislation pending that would seriously limit the rights of
organizations to speak freely on matters of importance . These laws are
designed in part to muzzle the NRA in it's defense of our right to keep
and
bear arms . We can't allow that to happen .

Not really. There is some question about the laws' ethical status -- it
depends on whether you believe in full disclosure, or complete privacy. The
two are in conflict. It's not as simple as the NRA suggests.

--
Ed Huntress