Listen up!

Wednesday's New York Times reports that

the National Rifle Association plans to begin broadcasting a daily radio program on Thursday to provide news and pro-gun commentary to 400,000 listeners.

Oh, well. I'm not happy about yet another right-wing outfit blasting out its Cro-Magnon message on the supposedly hopelessly liberal airwaves where conservatives, to hear them tell it, have no voice, but that's the way it goes: Money talks.

The group says its jump into broadcasting with its program, "NRANews," means that it should be viewed as a media organization that does not have to abide by provisions of a sweeping campaign finance law from 2002. ...

The N.R.A. says its three-hour program constitutes news and commentary, not advertising. As a result, when other advocacy groups are required to stop running political commercials, "NRANews" intends to continue broadcasting its reporting and commentary against politicians who favor gun control to Nov. 2.

Okay, now we have a problem.

The idea that a lobbying group, one that has drawn up a "blacklist" of gun control advocates, which has strenuously attacked even bans on assault weapons and the most basic safety controls like mandatory trigger locks, which wants to make it almost impossible for police to track gun sales by requiring FBI background checks to be destroyed 24 hours after a purchase, which advocated continuation of uncontrolled gun sales at gun fairs, whose research coordinator, Paul Blackman, was quoted as saying studies of homicide victims suggest it is "quite possible that their deaths, in terms of economic consequences to society, are net gains," the idea that such an outfit becomes a news organization exempt from the laws that apply to other advocacy and lobbying groups simply by spouting its trash over the airwaves, is, to put it mildly, bizarre.

Then again, bizarre is a word that comes easily where the NRA, whose executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, once called federal agents "jack-booted thugs," prompting even Bush the father to quit the group, is involved.

This is supposedly just a first step toward building an NRA media empire of sorts, as I noted in December.

The Times adds that

[a]dvocates of gun control sought to play down the plan, contending that it was simply to impress Republican allies of the group. The opponents questioned whether the association had the money to build a network, noting that its ambitious plans had fizzled in the past. ...

"I think they are really just trying to show the Republicans that they are going to be able to do something at election time," said Robert A. Ricker, a former lobbyist for the gun industry who is a consultant to a gun-control group, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "It's a lot of hype, but I don't think there will be substantial content."

That may well be true, but it misses the point. The issue isn't can the NRA pull off a big media presence, it's can it get itself labeled a news organization exempt from campaign finance laws?

Experts in campaign finance said the plan could open a major loophole in the law, which was intended to reduce the influence of money and special interest groups.

"If the N.R.A. is successful at this, we will definitely see other groups explore going down the same road," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics and former general counsel to the Federal Election Commission.

That's the issue and the threat. Campaign finance reform is supposed to be reducing the corroding influence of money in political campaigns. Efforts like this, if successful, would actually increase the power of money and the media access it can buy. And I say that no matter where on the political spectrum you sit, you should regard that as threatening.