Last year, when Tea Party activists almost derailed ObamaCare, the White House and its comrades in the House of Labor knew they had to somehow neutralize Americans who voiced opposition to their agenda. Ever since President Obama dispatched his soldiers to take on concerned Americans at townhall meetings last year, unions have tried to downplay their culpability in targeting tea party activists. But the targeting has not stopped. In fact, it seems like a new assault takes place every month.

In February, the union campaign against the Tea Party movement was publicly exposed. In fact, the union-backed website TheTeaPartyisOver.org openly states that “Patriot Majority is also putting together a tracking program of Tea Party activity nationwide to monitor outbreaks of actual violence, threats of violence or other types of extremism.” [Emphasis added.]

In March, Teamster boss James P. Hoffa took aim at Tea Party activists accusing them of being ‘manipulated’ and ‘misdirected.’

In April, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced a bill that eviscerates the First Amendment called the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act is another attempt by the union-controlled Democrat Party to shill for its big union bosses.

As Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) noted here on Big Government, “the White House and their allies on Capitol Hill see honest criticism as a threat to forcing their big government, liberal agenda through Congress.” While the DISCLOSE Act provides exemptions for traditional news media, Reason’s Bradley Smith and Jeffrey Patch point out:


The bill, however, would radically redefine how the FEC regulates political commentary. A section of the DISCLOSE Act would exempt traditional media outlets from coordination regulations, but the exemption does not include bloggers, only “a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication…” [Emphasis added.]

Moreover, the DISCLOSE Act apparently exempts labor unions. According to the GOP’s Committee on House Administration:

Despite their public claims that the bill is simply about disclosure and that the provisions will treat unions and corporations equally, the legislation headed to the House Floor for consideration includes provisions that exempt unions while placing cumbersome, unconstitutional requirements on corporations that reach far beyond disclosure. [Emphasis added.]

Also in May, New Jersey’s union-backed politicians introduced a bill that would, according to the National Rifle Association, “require certain contributors to ‘issue advocacy organizations’, including the NRA, to have their names, addresses and their employers information sent to the government.”

The bill (which you can read here) is sponsored by following union-backed Democrats:

While the entire bill is seemingly intended at gutting New Jerseyans’ Freedom of Speech, the particularly onerous portions are of this bill are here:

The term “issue advocacy organization” means an organization organized under section 527 of the federal Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. s.527) or under paragraphs (3) or (4) of subsection c. of section 501 of the federal Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. s.501), that does not fall within the definition of any other committee subject to the provisions of P.L.1973, c.83 (C.19:44A-1 et seq.), that engages in influencing or attempting to influence the outcome of any election or the selection, nomination, or election of any person to any State or local elective public office, or the passage or defeat of any public question, or in providing political information on any candidate or public question, and raises or expends $2,100. or more for any such purpose, but does not coordinate its activities with any candidate or political party.

And here:

The cumulative report, except as hereinafter provided, shall contain the name and mailing address of each person or group from whom moneys, loans, paid personal services or other things of value have been contributed since 48 hours preceding the date on which the previous such report was made and the amount contributed by each person or group, and where the contributor is an individual, the report shall indicate the occupation of the individual and the name and mailing address of the individual’s employer.

The cumulative quarterly report shall contain the name and mailing address of each person or group from whom moneys, loans, paid personal services or other things of value have been contributed and the amount contributed by each person or group, and where an individual has made such contributions, the report shall indicate the occupation of the individual and the name and mailing address of the individual’s employer. In the case of any loan reported pursuant to this subsection, the report shall contain the name and address of each person who cosigns such loan, and where an individual has cosigned such loans, the report shall indicate the occupation of the individual and the name and mailing address of the individual’s employer.

Presumably, the aforementioned reports would also be public information.

So, let’s say a Tea Party activist (or an NRA member*) who works down at the loading docks makes a donation to defeat a successor bill to Assembly Bill 2595, his information and that of his employer’s name becomes open to all eyes…including that of his “friendly” Teamster business agent.

While the general assumption may be that New Jersey’s new governor Chris Christie would veto such a direct threat aimed at individual freedoms, his position on this bill remains unclear (so far).

Unfortunately, at the rate of at least one assault on freedom per month, union-backed Democrats still have four and a half more months until November 2nd to try to take away the freedoms of their opponents.

_____________

* Footnote: While the pen is typically mightier than the sword, one must question the intelligence of anyone who targets a member of the NRA.