by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

The National Rifle Association’s (NRA) grassroots fax alert for Feb. 8 warned that the House of Representatives was scheduled to debate HR-2356, the Shays-Meehan version of the campaign finance “reform” bill, the week of Feb. 11.

Pressing for grassroots input to members of Congress, NRA’s earlier alerts had stressed that the so-called campaign reform measures—including the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate, S-27—would come up for votes soon.

What is clear from the NRA alert and an unusual unsigned editorial in The New York Times on Sunday, Feb. 10 is that it is now make-or-break time for a controversial issue that has percolated for months.

The NRA, and an unusual coalition of organizations that lean to both the left and the right, is opposed to both the Senate and House versions of the campaign bills. The principle arguments against the bills focus on the prohibitions and restrictions they would place on grassroots citizen participation in the election process. Fund-raising limits are only a small part of the campaign bills.

As currently written the bills would severely restrict political speech and the ability of pro-gun groups, labor unions, professional organizations and other groups from advising their members and supporters of the voting records and positions of candidates immediately before primary and general elections. Many unions are also among the leading opponents of the “reform” measures.

The major newspapers, broadcast, and other media outlets in the US have been almost universally in favor of the campaign “reform” proposals, claiming that they will clean up campaign finance abuses and the influence of fat-cat corporations and organizations in the political process. Seldom discussed by the big media supporters is the fact that their own influence on campaigns, and their ability to shape the outcome of the elections will be greatly enhanced by the “reform” bills.

The critical nature of the expected votes was highlighted by The Times with an editorial headlined “Campaign Reform’s ‘Armageddon.’ ”

The Times warned its readers that House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) were trying to get the White House to support “killer amendments” that could bury the Shays-Meehan HR-2356. The Times listed a series of amendments which it claimed were promoted as improvements but would bury the bill by undoing careful compromises that produced the best prospects for passage.

As the chief “bell-cow” newspaper in the US, The Times linked the Shays-Meehan bill to the scandalous crash of Enron and its role in doling out large chunks of campaign money to both Democrats and Republicans.

The Times singled out several congressmen from New York and New Jersey whose votes were needed for passage this time around, who might otherwise vote against the bill. Names were Reps. Sue Kelly, Benjamin Gilman, James Walsh, John McHugh and Jack Quinn, all New York Republicans. Also named were Reps. Rodney Frelinghuysen, Frank LoBiondo and Jim Saxton of New Jersey.

Perhaps it is a good indicator of how close the vote will be on a measure that can so greatly increase the power of big media to shape the political process and public policy.

“We rarely take this step, but today we urge supporters of reform to call their representatives starting Monday (Feb. 11), and make sure they are behind Shays-Meehan. The Capitol number is 202-224-3121,” The Times said, concluding with, “Let the voices of Americans speak louder than the sound of cash registers, once and for all.”

The New York Times and other newspapers who share this call for Americans to do the bidding of elitist big media, of course, neglect to say that passage of Shays-Meehan would silence the voices of gunowners, unionists and others who act collectively to raise the voices of average citizens that are so often muzzled by The Times and their media fellows.

It is showdown time, not just for Shays-Meehan, but for open political debate.