Democrats To Present The Disclose Act

[hortysir]

People really think big donors to our politians should be secret? Baffling...

Greta vanSustern interviewed Mitch McConnel tonight he said the bill called for disclosure for mostly Republican donors and had large carve pouts to exempt mostly dem donors such. As the unions. Fuck the demz

I'm not seeing any qualifiers as related to party-specific donors:
Congress.org

Also not seeing any amendments, so I'll check more deeply tomorrow.

It appears Congress.org is slow with their updates

 

[Black_Label]

People really think big donors to our politians should be secret? Baffling...

Greta vanSustern interviewed Mitch McConnel tonight he said the bill called for disclosure for mostly Republican donors and had large carve pouts to exempt mostly dem donors such. As the unions. Fuck the demz

I'm not seeing any qualifiers as related to party-specific donors:
Congress.org

Also not seeing any amendments, so I'll check more deeply tomorrow.

It appears Congress.org is slow with their updates

Because there was no such thing. McConnel is talking out of his ass and spreading lies as usual.

 

[hortysir]

Greta vanSustern interviewed Mitch McConnel tonight he said the bill called for disclosure for mostly Republican donors and had large carve pouts to exempt mostly dem donors such. As the unions. Fuck the demz

I'm not seeing any qualifiers as related to party-specific donors:
Congress.org

Also not seeing any amendments, so I'll check more deeply tomorrow.

It appears Congress.org is slow with their updates

Because there was no such thing. McConnel is talking out of his ass and spreading lies as usual.

This is definitely an issue we can agree on, BL.

I'll be contacting Nelson and Rubio tomorrow.

 

[Charles_Main]

People really think big donors to our politians should be secret? Baffling...

Do you really think people knowing who the donors are is going to keep dishonest politicians honest?

It's clear again the democrats feel this way

Yeah sure dude, they are Blowing smoke right up your ass and you are liking it. Neither Party is ever going to seriously support this. This is Campaign Year Posturing, If the Dems thought it had a chance of Passing, they would not bring it up.

Voted Yes By the way, but it's never going to happen. Anyone who thinks their Party will support it is a fool.

 

[Black_Label]

Do you really think people knowing who the donors are is going to keep dishonest politicians honest?

It's clear again the democrats feel this way

Yeah sure dude, they are Blowing smoke right up your ass and you are liking it. Neither Party is ever going to seriously support this. This is Campaign Year Posturing, If the Dems thought it had a chance of Passing, they would not bring it up.

Voted Yes By the way, but it's never going to happen. Anyone who thinks their Party will support it is a fool.

The dems have tried to pass this legislation before. Hell even McCain tried to stop all the secret donors and corporatist funds after W f'ed him over in 2000. In all instances the GOP shot it down.

Face it, the democrats support freedom and transparency, the republicans want to hide their puppet masters.

 

[Black_Label]

I'm not seeing any qualifiers as related to party-specific donors:
Congress.org

Also not seeing any amendments, so I'll check more deeply tomorrow.

It appears Congress.org is slow with their updates

Because there was no such thing. McConnel is talking out of his ass and spreading lies as usual.

This is definitely an issue we can agree on, BL.

I'll be contacting Nelson and Rubio tomorrow.

Think they give a damn?

Do the only thing that will really hurt and what anyone with sanity should do, don't ever vote (R) again

 

[Wiseacre]

McCain refused to support it because it had pro union features in it. The fucking democrats as usual tried to protect their constituents at the expense of the other side. Mother fuckers can't do it straight up, they gotta get an advantage and then bitch when they don't get it. Fuck 'em.

This is from the Heritage.org:

The real effects of the DISCLOSE Act will be to deter political speech (including criticism of incumbents, such as its chief sponsors, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)) and political advocacy by corporations and associations that Democrats don’t want participating in the American political process. It includes both absolute bans on independent political advocacy and new, burdensome disclosure requirements. Schumer admitted when he introduced the bill that “the deterrent effect should not be underestimated.” During a House Administration Committee hearing, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) made no bones about the fact that he hoped this Act “chills out all . . . I have no problem whatsoever keeping everybody out [of elections]. If I could keep all outside entities out, I would.”

Of course, the “deterrent” and “chilling” effect is meant to hit corporations — including nonprofit associations like Citizens United, the conservative advocacy organization that brought the original lawsuit — but not unions, which are exempted from most of the provisions of the bill. No surprise there, since unions support Democrats almost exclusively, with huge amounts of money. And the majority party is moving this bill at a breakneck pace through Congress to have it in place for the November elections, because Democrats fear November will be their election Waterloo.

The DISCLOSE Act would ban certain government contractors from engaging in any political speech, yet unions that represent government employees, and organizations like Planned Parenthood that receive large amounts of federal grants, would not be affected. American companies with American workers and American officers could be banned from speaking if a small minority of their shareholders are foreigners, yet unions with foreign officers and foreign members could spend as much money on political advocacy as they want. And many of the new disclosure provisions imposed by the act were made onerous and burdensome for the specific purpose of deterring political speech.

DISCLOSing Contempt for Liberty and the Constitution

 

[Sinjorri]

Because there was no such thing. McConnel is talking out of his ass and spreading lies as usual.

This is definitely an issue we can agree on, BL.

I'll be contacting Nelson and Rubio tomorrow.

Think they give a damn?

Do the only thing that will really hurt and what anyone with sanity should do, don't ever vote (R) again

republican voters never agree with democrats another time a right voter agrees, the dem never does, its their way or no way.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

People really think big donors to our politians should be secret? Baffling...

Do you really think people knowing who the donors are is going to keep dishonest politicians honest?

Sure it will. Politicians are to represent the people, not a handful of major campaign donors,...

It's clear again the democrats feel this way, and the republicans sure don't.

Except this bill does not do what it claims.For starters there are no limits at all for Unions. There are limits for any business that works in contracts with the US Government. This bill is so flawed as to be a joke. It is specifically designed to protect the Incumbent.

 

[Sinjorri]

Update: The Orwellian DISCLOSE Act fails…again:
Senate Democrats on Monday lost another attempt to pass legislation forcing donors of groups that bankroll most election ads to be revealed. But Democrats, led by New York Sen. Charles Schumer, pledged to hold the Senate floor hostage and continue the debate well into the night.
The DISLCOSE Act, which was dealt the same fate in the Senate in 2010, failed to overcome a key procedural vote on entirely partisan lines, 51-44. Democrats will push for another vote as early as Tuesday after holding a “midnight vigil” to protest the GOP filibuster of the measure…

wow what a shocker

 

[Moonglow]

I believe that this bill has been reintroduced from last year. I think it started in 2009 to get it passed.

 

[Sinjorri]

I believe that this bill has been reintroduced from last year. I think it started in 2009 to get it passed.

and still wasting time on it.

 

[Black_Label]

McCain refused to support it because it had pro union features in it. The fucking democrats as usual tried to protect their constituents at the expense of the other side. Mother fuckers can't do it straight up, they gotta get an advantage and then bitch when they don't get it. Fuck 'em.

Do you really think people knowing who the donors are is going to keep dishonest politicians honest?

Sure it will. Politicians are to represent the people, not a handful of major campaign donors,...

It's clear again the democrats feel this way, and the republicans sure don't.

Except this bill does not do what it claims.For starters there are no limits at all for Unions. There are limits for any business that works in contracts with the US Government. This bill is so flawed as to be a joke. It is specifically designed to protect the Incumbent.

You fools just lap up the right wing lies and propaganda without question, don't you?


"Four Republicans and one Democrat did not vote on the bill, which would require unions, nonprofits and corporate interest groups that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to disclose donors who give $10,000 or more."

Everyone INCLUDING unions that donate over $10,000 have to present transparency. There are no "waivers", loopholes, or anything else of the sort like the lying sacks of shit on the right are making up. The GOP trash are flat out lying to give an excuse to their ignorant sheep to believe for the reason why they are defending their corporate masters....

DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate - Tarini Parti - POLITICO.com

 

[ClosedCaption]

But Michelle Malkin told them something different. Do you expect them to believe their lying eyes?

 

[ClosedCaption]

People really think big donors to our politians should be secret? Baffling...

Do you really think people knowing who the donors are is going to keep dishonest politicians honest?

Here's question you'll dodge. Are you for disclosure of big donors? Yes or no
Thanks.

See..not only did he dodge it, he never came back. Standing on Principal I see.

The righties complain about Obama transparency but never ever want it...they only seek to mock Obama or the idea of transparency

 

[onecut39]

The democrats can present this legislation till hell freezes over. The Republicans will simply filibuster it.

 

[onecut39]

I believe that this bill has been reintroduced from last year. I think it started in 2009 to get it passed.

And every time it has been filibustered by the Republicans.

 

[Black_Label]

The democrats can present this legislation till hell freezes over. The Republicans will simply filibuster it.

Which is true. The GOP garbage wants to keep secrets and hide their masters at all costs. What a bunch of trash.

 

[Wiseacre]

I believe that this bill has been reintroduced from last year. I think it started in 2009 to get it passed.

And every time it has been filibustered by the Republicans.

Because the democrats can't resist putting stuff in there to protect the unions and their other constituents. That's why McCain wouldn't support it, next time why don't you put up a bill with no exceptions at all.

 

[Stephanie]

Do you really think people knowing who the donors are is going to keep dishonest politicians honest?

Here's question you'll dodge. Are you for disclosure of big donors? Yes or no
Thanks.

See..not only did he dodge it, he never came back. Standing on Principal I see.

The righties complain about Obama transparency but never ever want it...they only seek to mock Obama or the idea of transparency

yeah, like we know who all Donated to him.
get real, we know what this all about...too damn bad, it FAILED