Dem distraction: Senate to vote on Orwellian DISCLOSE Act…again

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,864
2,040
well

SNIP:
By Michelle Malkin • July 16, 2012 09:26 AM
Always look under the Astroturf mat.

Senate Democrats have failed to pass a budget in nearly 1,200 days.

But they are carving out time today to vote on the loophole-ridden, incumbency protection racket, masquerading as “campaign finance reform,” dubbed the DISCLOSE Act.

Wait a minute. Didn’t they already vote on the DISCLOSE Act?

Why, yes. Yes, they did.

They voted on it in September 2010 before the midterms. And it failed to meet the 60-vote threshold.

I told you two years ago in July 2010 why the DISCLOSE Act was a sham:

You know when a politician starts a sentence with “frankly,” he’s about to lie to your face. The same principle applies to campaign finance legislation dubbed the “DISCLOSE Act.” The voter’s instinctive reaction should be: What are they trying to hide now? Drafted out of public view with left-wing lobbyists and rammed through Congress after bypassing committee hearings, this bum bill would have been better named the CLOSEDDOOR Act.

At a Rose Garden press conference on Monday, President Obama decried the influence of “shadow groups” on elections and urged the Senate to pass the “reform” sponsored by N.Y. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer. But the loophole-ridden package exempts large nonprofits with 500,000 or more members. Behemoth labor unions get preferential treatment. Bradley Smith, former Federal Elections Commission chairman, noted that the law places radical speech-squelching restrictions on companies’ ability to run independent political ads: “(I)f you’re a company with a government contract of over $10 million (like more than half of the top 50 U.S. companies) or if you’re a company with more than 20 percent foreign shareholders, you can’t even mention a candidate in an ad for up to a full year before the election. … There are no similar prohibitions for unions representing government contractors or unions with foreign membership.”

GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell put it more starkly during Tuesday’s debate before the Senate cloture vote on the bill: The DISCLOSE Act, he said, is a “transparent attempt to rig the fall elections.” At bottom, McConnell diagnosed correctly, this is a jobs-protection bill for entrenched incumbents more interested in protecting their hides than protecting the Constitution. While the cloture vote fell three votes short of the needed 60 on Tuesday, Schumer vowed to resurrect the issue “again and again and again until we pass it.”

read it all here
Michelle Malkin » Dem distraction: Senate to vote on Orwellian DISCLOSE Act…again
 
well

SNIP:
By Michelle Malkin • July 16, 2012 09:26 AM
Always look under the Astroturf mat.

Senate Democrats have failed to pass a budget in nearly 1,200 days.

But they are carving out time today to vote on the loophole-ridden, incumbency protection racket, masquerading as “campaign finance reform,” dubbed the DISCLOSE Act.

Wait a minute. Didn’t they already vote on the DISCLOSE Act?

Why, yes. Yes, they did.

They voted on it in September 2010 before the midterms. And it failed to meet the 60-vote threshold.

I told you two years ago in July 2010 why the DISCLOSE Act was a sham:

You know when a politician starts a sentence with “frankly,” he’s about to lie to your face. The same principle applies to campaign finance legislation dubbed the “DISCLOSE Act.” The voter’s instinctive reaction should be: What are they trying to hide now? Drafted out of public view with left-wing lobbyists and rammed through Congress after bypassing committee hearings, this bum bill would have been better named the CLOSEDDOOR Act.

At a Rose Garden press conference on Monday, President Obama decried the influence of “shadow groups” on elections and urged the Senate to pass the “reform” sponsored by N.Y. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer. But the loophole-ridden package exempts large nonprofits with 500,000 or more members. Behemoth labor unions get preferential treatment. Bradley Smith, former Federal Elections Commission chairman, noted that the law places radical speech-squelching restrictions on companies’ ability to run independent political ads: “(I)f you’re a company with a government contract of over $10 million (like more than half of the top 50 U.S. companies) or if you’re a company with more than 20 percent foreign shareholders, you can’t even mention a candidate in an ad for up to a full year before the election. … There are no similar prohibitions for unions representing government contractors or unions with foreign membership.”

GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell put it more starkly during Tuesday’s debate before the Senate cloture vote on the bill: The DISCLOSE Act, he said, is a “transparent attempt to rig the fall elections.” At bottom, McConnell diagnosed correctly, this is a jobs-protection bill for entrenched incumbents more interested in protecting their hides than protecting the Constitution. While the cloture vote fell three votes short of the needed 60 on Tuesday, Schumer vowed to resurrect the issue “again and again and again until we pass it.”

read it all here
Michelle Malkin » Dem distraction: Senate to vote on Orwellian DISCLOSE Act…again



but but but only republicans waste time and votes not the dems say it isnt so.
 
seems to me I remember a thread recently whining about how much money the GOP was 'wsting' by perpetuating a vote that they could not win.

Where is the fauxrage from that poster towards the Dems for doing the same thing???
 
I stopped reading after that.

let me guess anyone whos not a dem isnt credible? or is it u cant refute her research?

Malkin is an ultra right wing piece of shit with 0 credibility. Use an unbiased source if you want anyone to actually think they are not a complete hack spreading bullshit like stephanie.


we cant u deem anyone conservative as 0 cred ur attack insult attack spin tactic doesnt allow for adult conversation.
 
The disclose act has been changed since last introduced. It has been pared down to a fraction of the original bill.

I don't expect facts like that to stop the wheel of false equivalences from the right tho'.
 
The disclose act has been changed since last introduced. It has been pared down to a fraction of the original bill.

I don't expect facts like that to stop the wheel of false equivalences from the right tho'.

then put it up here.
 
I stopped reading after that.

let me guess anyone whos not a dem isnt credible? or is it u cant refute her research?

Malkin is an ultra right wing piece of shit with 0 credibility. Use an unbiased source if you want anyone to actually think they are not a complete hack spreading bullshit like stephanie.

like the rest of your libtard brethren say when we poo-poo TPM or HuffPo...

'don't shoot the messenger. The facts stated in the OP are exactly that... facts. What the source was is unimportant'.
 
The disclose act has been changed since last introduced. It has been pared down to a fraction of the original bill.

I don't expect facts like that to stop the wheel of false equivalences from the right tho'.

then put it up here.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on Wednesday introduced a stripped-down version of the 2010 Disclose Act, without any of the more controversial elements that Republicans cited in torpedoing the bill last time.

Disclose Act's Latest Incarnation Would Force Vote On Secret Political Slush Funds
 
Hey Mrs. Malkin,
everyone have estimated your range and said something about you. Like someone said that the lady who use cosmetics that's not your kind and someone said like no issue dotty.. this is probably over your frames leads anyway..
and you should discuss, so what the real factor that you've ceased studying that?
 

Forum List

Back
Top