Ed Huntress wrote:
"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

The truth lies somewhere in the middle , as it usually does . We only hear
what
'they" want us to know , and that's seldom the whole truth ...


--
Snag
Got Guns ?