Democrats To Present The Disclose Act

[Soggy in NOLA]

So now Pres. Barry Kardashian needs a law to force him to do what he promised to do voluntarily?

Smashing!

 

[Stephanie]

So now Pres. Barry Kardashian needs a law to force him to do what he promised to do voluntarily?

Smashing!

no kidding...

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

So you are for disclosing? I missed that part.

Or is this more about asking Obama for transparency without being pro-transparency like I said before

 

[Black_Label]

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.

Read the link I posted moron, it does NOT protect the unions! The GOP trash are lying to you, and you fools are lapping it up.

 

[Black_Label]

I'm surprised with the poll results considering how this site leans pretty hard to the right. It looks like it's clear the GOP is going against the wishes of the american people, even their own supporters,...

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am interested to know how the calls to Nelson and Rubio went.

 

[Claudette]

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.

You bet.

Does anyone seriously think either party wants their big donors know??

If you do then your living in la la land.

 

[Black_Label]

I am interested to know how the calls to Nelson and Rubio went.

Likely just sent them a box of chocolates in the shape of a heart, asking for an invite to the next Koch retreat event for Willard.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

They did. The bill that the GOP shot down was clean as a whistle. No exceptions and they took out EVERYTHING the GOP objected to in the 2010 bill...and still they voted against it.

Now, why would they do that, one must ask...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Even if this is campaign year posturing...Arent you at least concerned that even in an election year repubs wont even pretend to be for this?

Critisize dems all you want about not "really" wanting this but they are the ones bringing it up for a vote

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Read the link I posted moron, it does NOT protect the unions! The GOP trash are lying to you, and you fools are lapping it up.

Sure it protects the unions, don't be stupid. The unions get their millions by extorting $$$ from their members, none of whom INDIVIDUALLY give more than the $10,000 threshold. They can still spend ALL the $$$ they want to because of the way the law is worded.

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[ClosedCaption]

Getting a freedom Democracy America Loving Repub to say they are for disclosing big donors to find out who is influencing Washington Politicians is a hard work. Nailing a Jellyfish to a wall is easier than getting a Repub to take a position on this

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats present bills knowing that they would never comply with the laws in the first place. If the obama regime intended to comply with the law, we would have had the fast and furious documents by now.

 

[hortysir]

I'm surprised with the poll results considering how this site leans pretty hard to the right. It looks like it's clear the GOP is going against the wishes of the american people, even their own supporters,...

A lot of us, here, have been saying for some time that there shouldn't be limits as long as there is full disclosure.

Just seems oddly convenient that, during a campaign year where (for the 1st time ever) the incumbent will be outspent by the challenger, the Dem-controlled Senate chooses now for transparency.

 

[Black_Label]

I'm surprised with the poll results considering how this site leans pretty hard to the right. It looks like it's clear the GOP is going against the wishes of the american people, even their own supporters,...

A lot of us, here, have been saying for some time that there shouldn't be limits as long as there is full disclosure.

Just seems oddly convenient that, during a campaign year where (for the 1st time ever) the incumbent will be outspent by the challenger, the Dem-controlled Senate chooses now for transparency.

The dems have already tired to pass it years ago to have it again shot down by the right wing thugs.

Though like mentioned by another poster, how did it go calling your representatives to complain about them supporting crooks over transparency?

 

[hortysir]

I'm surprised with the poll results considering how this site leans pretty hard to the right. It looks like it's clear the GOP is going against the wishes of the american people, even their own supporters,...

A lot of us, here, have been saying for some time that there shouldn't be limits as long as there is full disclosure.

Just seems oddly convenient that, during a campaign year where (for the 1st time ever) the incumbent will be outspent by the challenger, the Dem-controlled Senate chooses now for transparency.

The dems have already tired to pass it years ago to have it again shot down by the right wing thugs.

Though like mentioned by another poster, how did it go calling your representatives to complain about them supporting crooks over transparency?

Phone lines were bullshit scripted replies.

E-mail response from Rubio was the same old bullshit "freedom of speech" reply.


I say that we all wait until after this election and pressure EVERYBODY to pass transparency-in-contributions legislation when there isn't an election looming.....that tends to make either party nervous.
If we can get it to the floor in an odd year, it might stand a chance.

 

[Wiseacre]

The real issue is whether a person or organization should be able to support a political party or cause in anonimity. One might dismiss these fears below as ridiculous, but I think there are those who would use force, coercion, intimidation, and violence to achieve their political ends, even if they are not directly connected to a political entity. In an ideal world, such would not be the case; we could and should be able to express our views and support any political candidate, party, or cause without fear of retribution. But that day is not here; so we are left with choosing between the lesser of 2 evils: full disclosure or freedom of speech.


snippet:

Consider this chilling quote from Chuck Schumer (D.,N.Y.) at a press conference in February of 2010 about how DISCLOSE was intended to work:
These requirements won’t ban political activity, but the level of transparency will, at the very least, make corporations realize everything they do in the nature of political advocacy will be public. That will make them think twice before spending unlimited sums to influence elections. The deterrent effect should not be underestimated.
Try to soak in what Senator Schumer is saying here. He believes that there should be a way to deter speech and he’s proposing the DISCLOSE bill for that purpose. Luckily DISCLOSE was filibustered which of course was not a deterrent for Schumer and now a cloture vote is scheduled for today.
As Bradley Smith at National Review noted:
The bill’s real aim is to force trade associations and nonprofits to publicly name their donors. Such lists might be used by competing groups to poach members, or, more ominously, by government officials to threaten or retaliate against political opponents, or by interest groups to gin up boycotts and threats against the individual and corporate members of the groups.
Think there’s no way that could happen? Here’s another scary quote, this time from Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod discussing the Citizens United victory:
I hope that one of the things we can do, when we win this election, is use whatever tools are available, up to and including a Constitutional amendment, to turn this back.
Then there’s this quote from the anonymous warning I posted a few weeks ago:
Shortly before the Obama campaign asked the FEC to investigate Crossroads GPS, Bloomberg reported that an IRS decision “revoking the tax-exempt status of a small political nonprofit organization may foreshadow an investigation into groups such as Crossroads GPS and Priorities USA that spend millions on the 2012 U.S. presidential election.” So Obama’s IRS established a bit of administrative precedent in the least politically painful way possible (dinging inconsequential allies by having the IRS make an administrative decision about their legal status), then a story said that this “foreshadow[ed] an investigation into Crossroads GPS….and then, almost as if it was a coordinated plan, Obama’s campaign launched the complaint about Crossroads GPS.
So we have Chuck Schumer talking about “deterrents”, David Axelrod spelling out the administration’s intent to “turn back” the SCOTUS ruling regarding the free speech in the Citizens United v. FEC, and the Obama administration appearing to work in concert with the Internal Revenue Service to scare opponents into submission. And now we have the DISCLOSE act who’s sole purpose is to enshrine union spending while squashing SuperPACs.
How will they accomplish this? Well the Democrats were kind enough to put provisions in the DISCLOSE act that will keep the unions safe and warm.
A provision called “stand by your ad” was dropped from the bill which would have required endorsements at the end of ads similar to the ones that candidates are required to provide now. In other words, “Yo, dis is Jimmy Hoffa, and I approve of this friggin’ ad” may have been included in a union sponsored ad. Being the strong silent types, the unions put pressure on the Democrats to remove the provision and in today’s vote it will be absent.
This has the effect of removing the only real disclosure unions would’ve been providing while creating new disclosures for SuperPACs and 501(c). Essentially, unions would continue to remain in the shadows piling unlimited money into campaigns without the same expectations of transparency since their “donors” are simply dues paid be workers.

DISCLOSE Act Up For Vote: Call Your Senator | RedState

 

[g5000]

I think this is a great piece of legislation.

Probably because you have not read it.

 

[Black_Label]

I think this is a great piece of legislation.

Probably because you have not read it.

I have read it, have you?

 

[GuyPinestra]

I think this is a great piece of legislation.

Probably because you have not read it.

I have read it, have you?

You probably masturbated over it like a teenage boy with his first copy of Penthouse.