LEFTIST TREASON ON ARROGANT DISPLAY

While the left seeks to overturn whatever is left of the American system of government, they accuse the right of sedition, the crime of advocating the violent overthrow of the government. It is hard to tell whether this is a conscious tactic of misdirection, or simply psychological projection.

The latest is a smear-job by MSNBC's Chris Matthews, which apparently uses fringe 9/11 "truthers" and the proto-fascist 1930s leftist Father Coughlin as example of the dangerous ideas of the right.

All of this serves a distinct and dangerous purpose. The left is vilifying the right as violent and seditious, because they are working up the nerve to suspend the freedom of political speech and forcibly suppress political opposition.

I don't think they'll manage to work up enough nerve to go all the way, not yet, but they're already pushing through an intermediate step: the DISCLOSE Act, a chaotic jumble of new regulations on political speech, the purpose of which seems to be to impose onerous restrictions on right-leaning advocacy groups, while granting special exemptions for supporters of the left.

In an open letter to members of Congress, the National Right to Life Committee, a group with a long history of support for the First Amendment rights of political organizations, explains that the bill is not, as its sponsors contend, merely an exercise in making sure groups make information about themselves and their donors available which, in Congress' judgment, the public needs to know. It is actually about discouraging "as much as possible, disfavored groups (such as the NRLC) from communicating about officeholders by exposing citizens who support such efforts to harassment and intimidation, and by smothering organizations in layer on layer of record keeping and reporting requirements, all backed by the threat of civil and criminal sanctions."

What the Disclose Act proposes to do, therefore, is constitutionally dubious but politically advantageous to the Democrats. As written, it includes numerous "carve outs," for groups like labor unions which are part of the party's electoral and political constituency, that exempt them from the wide-reaching dictates of this new law.

This piece of stealth legislation finally made it into the news when the National Rifle Association, which had opposed it, sold out the freedom of political speech in exchange for a special carve-out of its own.

Like I've been saying, we have one election left in which the slap down this administration and this Congress and begin the long process of restoring constitutionally limited government to the United States.

"DISCLOSing Contempt for Liberty and the Constitution," Hans A. von Spakovsky, Heritage Foundation, June 17

The House of Representatives is expected to vote in the next day or two on the DISCLOSE Act, a law purportedly intended to blunt the effects of the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision. That case restored the First Amendment right of political speech by throwing out a federal ban on independent political advocacy by unions and corporations, including both for-profit and non-profit associations.

The real effects of the DISCLOSE Act will be to deter political speech (including criticism of incumbents, such as its chief sponsors, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.)) and political advocacy by corporations and associations that Democrats don't want participating in the American political process. It includes both absolute bans on independent political advocacy and new, burdensome disclosure requirements. Schumer admitted when he introduced the bill that "the deterrent effect should not be underestimated." During a House Administration Committee hearing, Rep. Michael Capuano (D., Mass.) made no bones about the fact that he hoped this Act "chills out all.... I have no problem whatsoever keeping everybody out [of elections]. If I could keep all outside entities out, I would."…

The DISCLOSE Act is the modern-day version of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed by the Federalists in 1798 to quell political opposition from the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson. These acts were one of the worst (and most noxious) violations of the First Amendment ever passed by Congress. Under their terms, Federalist judges jailed or fined 25 people, mostly Republicans newspaper editors, and many of their newspapers were forced to shut down….

As always, there are those willing to sacrifice liberty in order to gain a personal or political advantage for themselves. The National Rifle Association, which previously called the Citizens United decision a "defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us," has apparently agreed to withdraw its opposition to the DISCLOSE Act in exchange for a narrowly drawn exemption….

Public opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts was so great that it was major factor in the election of Thomas Jefferson as president in 1800…. If the unconstitutional, partisan, and pernicious DISCLOSE Act is passed and signed into law by President Obama, it will be interesting to see if the American public has the same reaction to this noxious bill in 2010 and 2012 that the public had in 1800.