General Ashcroft make his move

[Declan McCullagh]

Matt,
Thanks for posting this. I'm not sure why this should be a surprise.

Groups that care about currying favor with Congress and the
administration have a strong incentive to distort the truth to
constitutents in hopes of persuading them that awful compromises are
not.

To use examples from the Net, the Center for Democracy and Technology
circa 1995-1996 backed a bill that would criminalize "harmful to
minors" material online.  In part this was due to a desire to remain
influential on Capitol Hill rather than taking a more extreme
position. (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) EFF cut a (bad)
deal on CALEA and backed a flawed bill around the same time
(http://cyberwerks.com/cyberwire/cwd/cwd.94.09.14.html).

This is not to say those groups would do the same thing now, of course.

The other approach is to hew to principle, with the understanding that
you'll be less effective as a lobbyist. Deal-cutting is the currency
of Washington politics, and if you don't do it you don't have much to
spend. The ACLU's lobbyists take this approach. (So do groups like
CEI, EPIC, and Cato, though they don't really lobby. I've seen Gun
Owners of America take the same no-compromise stand.)

The NRA doesn't see things the same way, and their approach does make
them more influential. There may be other factors as well, but it
should be no surprise that Fortune magazine's poll of Hill staffers
reports that staffers from both major parties rank the NRA among the
top five or so most influential groups. The no compromise groups don't
make the list.

Also, this issue may be part of a pretty complicated political
analysis. For instance, the NRA may want the help of the Bush
administration (a veto over a bad campaign finance bill) in one area
so will laud them here even when the praise is undeserved.  NRA
lobbyists may be betting that a paean to Ashcroft now will let them
bank political capital that can be spent against a gun bill later.
Strategically, if the NRA takes the extreme step of later denouncing
Ashcroft, this current pro-Ashcroft campaign will make the media take
their later statements more seriously.

Then again, it could be an honest mistake on the part of the NRA
in leaving out that key footnote. Has anyone asked them?

-Declan
www.mccullagh.org



On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 03:01:03PM -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
> [Note from Matthew Gaylor:  Richard Stevens is author of the recent 
> book "Dial 911 and Die" published by the Jews for the Preservation of 
> Firearms Ownership.   http://www.jpfo.org ]
> 
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Richard Stevens <dial911book at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Matt -- we must protest when "our side" errs
> To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt at coil.com>
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> The July 2001 Issue of NRA's America's First Freedom
> magazine featured a cover picture of John Ashcroft and
> highlighted the story of Ashcroft's letter indicating
> that "the Constitution protects the private ownership
> of firearms for lawful purposes."  The magazine (at
> pp. 35-37) exults in the reversal of Justice
> Department policy on the Second Amendment.
> 
> That's great.  On page 37, the NRA reprints Ashcroft's
> letter -- as though it were *in full* -- but omits the
> footnote that exists in Ashcroft's actual letter.
> 
> As you know, Ashcroft also said in that footnote in
> his letter that the Constitution "does not prohibit
> Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms
> ownership for compelling state interests, such as
> prohibiting firearms ownership by convicted felons."
> 
> The NRA omitted a key element of Ashcroft's position
> -- and then published the letter as though it were
> complete.
> 
> That omission is a terrible distortion -- and
> seriously damages NRA's credibility with those of us
> who know the whole truth.  What else might the NRA
> choose to omit, where the omission serves a PR
> purpose?  Are their reports from the UN correct?
> Their reports about lobbying efforts and the positions
> taken by NRA-backed candidates?
> 
> I wonder who at the NRA thought it was a good idea to
> distort the facts, and conceal the somewhat negative
> truth, just to advance the appearance of NRA success?
> That's the conduct we came to expect from HCI & Co.
> ... now it has infected the NRA.
> 
> Members like me should demand the NRA publish an
> accounting of this mistake, fire the person who made
> the mistake, apologize and repent from such conduct.
> 
> --Richard Stevens
> (my personal views only)
> 
> **************************************************************************
> Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
> Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA
> on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
> Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
> **************************************************************************