1. Regulate GOA’s Communications. As introduced, both the House and Senate bills would seriously hinder the ability of groups to help pro-gun candidates and to educate pro-gun voters. If a group like GOA had ever communicated with a candidate or his campaign at any time, it could possibly be barred from making independent expenditures on behalf of that candidate (section 251, H.R. 493). Such limitations on expenditures include mailings, issue (pro-gun) advertisements, or other forms of action which are not coordinated with any campaign and are therefore constitutionally protected from regulation. It is only natural for gun groups to talk to legislators favoring your gun rights. This provision would thus squelch speech and hamstring the gun lobbies that you support. Both bills would also regulate GOA’s educating of voters: GOA mailings which ask recipients to contact their congressman, and which cost in excess of $10,000, would have to be registered (sec. 241, S. 25; sec. 254 H.R. 493) — and could even be outlawed.

2. Slash the Political Power of the Pro-Gun Movement. S. 25 would ban political action committee (PAC) contributions to federal candidates (section 201). For Second Amendment groups, this ban on PACs — coupled with the elimination of independent expenditures — would outlaw virtually any involvement in the national political process.

While H.R. 493 stops just short of an outright ban (section 201), the effect of drying up seed money for challengers would be to virtually eliminate any serious challenges to well-known incumbents. Incumbents are handed over $5 million of taxpayer funds to conduct their operations (including their pro rata share of the general operations of Congress). Used effectively, these resources can be channeled into a formidable reelection effort. Without seed money from PACs, challengers will find it considerably more difficult to take on this form of taxpayer-financed publicity machine.

3. Insulate Anti-gun Incumbents. Because incumbents already have strong name recognition — and because pro-gun groups would be prohibited from being active in the political process — it would be virtually impossible to attempt to remove congressmen for their anti-gun votes.

The media would, of course, be free to continue its anti-gun drum beat. The result is that a pro-gun vote would politically jeopardize an incumbent’s political career, while an anti-gun vote would enhance it. Under these circumstances, whatever incentives there are to stand up for the Second Amendment would crumble. How long would the manufacture, importation, sale and ownership of firearms in America continue under this system?

4. Expand the power of Federal Bureaucrats. The two “Incumbent Protection” bills (S. 25 and H.R. 493) would also vest the Federal Election Commission (FEC) with new far-reaching powers in order to enforce the massively expanded prohibitions in these bills. Among other things, the FEC will be empowered to conduct random audits of gun groups (sec. 302, S. 25; sec. 301, H.R. 493), place prior restraints on political activity (sec. 303, S. 25; sec. 306, H.R. 493) and more.

* “The McCain-Feingold election-reform bill, the darling of the president and his fellow Democrats, expresses Washington’s unique approach to repentance: Instead of punishing colleagues who have broken laws with ingenuity and flair, honorables want to define old transgressions out of existence and recategorize dissent as a federal crime” — Tony Snow, nationally syndicated columnist, The Washington Times, September 22, 1997.

* “You want a definition of chutzpah? Forget the kid who killed his parents and begged for mercy because he was an orphan. Think instead about Bill Clinton demanding that Congress pass campaign-finance reform” — James Pinkerton, Newsday and Los Angeles TimesThe Washington Times, September 26, 1997. columnist, quoted in