Nonprofit Regulation and Democratic Inequality, Part 2

Update 2: Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pulled the bill after a rebellion among Democrats over the NRA exemption. Politico reports that the Congressional Black Caucus felt the provision would disadvantage the NAACP and other progressive groups.

Update: The Huffington Post is reporting that the exemption has been expanded to include groups that have at least 500,000 members. It will be interesting to learn how (or whether) the legislation defines "member." Nonprofits, especially those whose members are nothing more than contributors, count membership in all sorts of ways. Even if the more relaxed 500,000-member standard goes into effect, it won't help gun control groups, which could only hope to have that many donors.

Political scientists have long recognized that interest groups are not egalitarian. Some are systematically advantaged, particularly those that represent well-heeled constituents and those, such as hobbyist organizations, that can offer tangible social benefits and material inducements to lure members.

The classic example of this inequity involves the 4-million-member National Rifle Association (NRA), on the one hand, and the comparatively weak gun control movement, on the other. In my book, Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America, I estimated that, in the campaign's modern heyday, membership in state and national gun-control groups probably totaled no more than 7% of the NRA's membership.

Now comes word that the House of Representatives, seeking to restore campaign finance regulations that were overturned by the Supreme Court in January, has struck a deal with the NRA to make that inequity even more pronounced.

Politico reports that House members have carved out an exemption to a proposed law that would "require special-interest groups to disclose their top donors if they choose to run TV ads or send out mass mailings in the final months of an election."

However, according to the article, that provision would not apply to groups that "have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations."

Reports Politico: "Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions."

Fred Wertheimer, president of the Democracy 21 campaign-reform group, told the Washington Post that the compromise constituted "a very narrow exemption" that would not apply to most advocacy groups.

Understandably, advocacy groups don't want to disclose their donors. Requiring them for the first time to do so, in exchange for the right to state their views on candidates, will no doubt constitute a chilling effect on their political voice.

The proposal, if enacted, would be yet another example of how obscure regulations affecting nongovernmental organizations perpetuate democratic inequalities.

Thoughts on Guns, Cultural Identity, and Political Mobilization

In this piece in the Newark Star-Ledger, I argue that it's time for a good old-fashioning reckoning about the place of firearms in our society.

Gun rights forces have spent nearly four decades crafting a compelling, values-based narrative in which gun owners are all that's standing between us and tyranny. The "pistol packing patriot" ideal is central to many gun owners' civic identity and an incredibly effective mobilizing tool. By contrast, the gun-control side has only fitfully waded into the terrain of political culture and national values.

Ironically, by finding last June that D.C. residents have a Constitutional right to own a handgun for self-protection -- a ruling the Court is poised to extend nationwide this month -- the Supreme Court has opened the way to the values debate.

With openly armed protesters now assembling in legislators' offices, at the base of airport runways, even in Starbucks and Whole Foods, it's about time to have a reasonable debate about the place of guns in our democracy.

The gun rights narrative is succinctly captured in National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre's speech to the group's annual meeting last month.

In a compelling deconstruction of the gun rights narrative, gun control advocates Joshua Horwitz and Casey Anderson, of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, have published Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea (University of Michigan Press, 2009).

For an excellent piece rebutting common misconceptions about gun regulation, see my colleague Philip Cook's op-ed, with Jens Ludwig, in this week's Washington Post Outlook section.

Is it Pro-Democratic to Urge Non-Participation?

Arlington, Virginia, is a progressive county of about 210,000 across the Potomac River from Washington, DC. Its policies are set by a County Board consisting of five at-large members serving four-year, unlimited terms. For as long as anyone can remember, the Board has consisted entirely of Democrats; in a county that voted 72% for Barack Obama, that is not expected to change. Arlington's day-to-day operations are run by a nonpartisan County Manager.

Generally speaking, Arlington is a happy place. It features low unemployment; strong and stable property values; minimal crime; good schools; a diverse and immigrant-friendly populace; hip restaurants and urban amenities; a vibrant nonprofit infrastructure; active neighborhood associations; a clean and reliable subway line; and policies that, however imperfect, respect the need for affordable housing, smart growth, participatory democracy, parks and bike trails, and inclusiveness.

But there is trouble in paradise. Important groups within the community are mobilizing to pass a referendum that would fundamentally change the form of government in Arlington -- and with it the County's power structure and policy prerogatives.

The dissenters include the police and firefighters unions, who believe that the County Manager has too much power and not enough appreciation for their needs. Also supporting the change-of-government effort are the Green and Republican parties, who are tired of one-party Democratic rule, the near-inevitable result of electing County Board members at-large, rather than by district (as the dissenters have proposed).

Opposing the change-of-government effort are the Democratic party, the County's local and state elected officials, and numerous civic organizations. Opponents are concerned that, among other things, the proposed change of government would undermine the County's ability to set strict standards for child care centers, promote affordable housing (and with it ethnic and class diversity), and sustain a Human Rights Commission. These are features that distinguish Arlington County from the rest of the state. Referendum opponents argue that, besides endangering these policies, the referendum would undermine Arlingtonians' right of self-governance and self-determination.

As the referendum effort has ginned up, most of the commentary has focused on the merits (or not) of the question at hand - whether Arlington should go from a County Manager Plan to the County Board Form of government. But a secondary and very interesting debate has arisen over a prior question -- whether Arlingtonians who are opposed to or undecided on the matter should sign the peitition to put it on the ballot.

Supporters of the referendum must gather roughly 14,000 signatures -- about 10% of the Arlington electorate -- for the proposal to go to a popular vote. So far, no one knows how many signatures have been gathered -- the sponsors won't tell.

Anti-petition forces have launched a "Decline to Sign" campaign, urging Arlingtonians to keep the referendum from advancing beyond the July 15 signature deadline. In effect, they are taking the position that the referendum should not be put to a popular vote.

Ironically, perhaps, those opposed to the reform effort include some of Arlington's stalwart defenders and practitioners of participatory democracy, including County Board Chair Jay Fisette and the prominent civic activists behind the newly created opposition group, the Coalition for Arlington Good Government.

Their "decline to sign" position raises important normative questions for Arlington citizens and civic associations specifically and for deliberative democrats generally.

Should deliberative democrats and other advocates of participatory politics ever advocate nonparticipation?

What if participation would advance a measure that would undermine participatory democracy down the line? (Or, as a friend put it, "What if the referendum advocated a return to slavery? Should we sign the petition then?")

What if the measure would undermine participatory democracy and self-governance in some ways but enhance it in others?

Shouldn't participatory democrats support signing the petition, advocate for or against the referendum in a robust public debate, and trust the voters to decide?

Or are participatory democrats reasonable in assuming that voters in low-turnout elections may have particularly self-interested motives, making them questionable stewards of the broader public interest?

What should self-styled participatory democrats do?