Democrats To Present The Disclose Act

[whitehall]

Be careful what you wish for lefties. Barry's ties to organized crime in Chicago might turn up as well as the do-nothing Senate majority leader's crooked real estate deals in Vegas.

 

[g5000]

I think this is a great piece of legislation.

Probably because you have not read it.

I have read it, have you?

Of course. I read the last one, too, and can tell you what is not in this one that was in the last one. And I can tell you what's new in this one.

I don't rely on media to tell me what is in a bill I can read for myself. The last time around, the media did not report the most vile parts of the DISCLOSE Act. I think I was one in a million people who actually read it and saw those parts.

Now they are gone from this one.

But some new stuff is in there.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As expected, the GOP trash blocked the bill to hide their secret donors

DISCLOSE Campaign Spending Act Blocked By Senate Republicans

They will continue to filibuster this just as they will continue to avoid any bills that could result in jobs.

Its the pub/bag way.

 

[Some Guy]

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

I think the main point this makes is that forcing disclosure would open up someone to scrutiny (at the very least) for their contributions to perhaps the losing party.

Let's be honest: would anyone put it past team Obama to go after big companies that had contributed to the Romney campaign should he win?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Be careful what you wish for lefties. Barry's ties to organized crime in Chicago might turn up as well as the do-nothing Senate majority leader's crooked real estate deals in Vegas.

PROVE IT or STFU.

Idiot.

 

[g5000]

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

I think the main point this makes is that forcing disclosure would open up someone to scrutiny (at the very least) for their contributions to perhaps the losing party.

Let's be honest: would anyone put it past team Obama to go after big companies that had contributed to the Romney campaign should he win?

I have bolded the part which alludes to what I was talking about in my last post.

In the last go-round with the DISCLOSE Act in 2010, there were provisions inserted into the Act which exempted national labor unions and organizations like Move-On.org from having to follow the disclosure rules. Upon reading the bill, it became screamingly obvious it was aimed at right-wing PACs that had been created in the past ten years.

This was not mentioned by the gushing media types in favor of the law.

It was one of the most blatant attempts by the Left to tilt the field to their advantage I had ever seen.

 

[Wiseacre]

It's not just repub vs dem, what if you support or are against a enviro group or activity, for or against abortion, gay rights, or any other cause. If your name is released, you could become a target; anyone who thinks that is not a real and distinct threat is ignoring reality. So, do we expose people to that possibility, thereby influencing their decision to speak or act? Or, is it worse to allow them to remain in anonimity, as when they enter the voting booth. There's a reason why each of us is allowed to vote in private; what we are talking about here is an extension of that.

 

[Some Guy]

There's a reason why each of us is allowed to vote in private; what we are talking about here is an extension of that.

Great point.

 

[Liability]

I think this is a great piece of legislation. Transparency is at the utmost of importance and this legislation will require those donating more than $10,000 in political contributions to disclose themselves.

Democrats push for transparency in political ads with DISCLOSE Act | The Raw Story

i find it funny the dems would do this after Obama screamed he was going to be transparent and didnt even do that and now that the dems are losing this they have to go screaming foul.

I guess anyone who stays in that party is just blind, oblivious or both.

Obama has been completely transparent, and has released his tax returns for 12+ years, why won't Willard?

You know, Obama would veto this if it applied to this years election.

He would sign it in an instant. Obama and the dems are strongly against crooks trying to throw elections with secret funds. Not to mention the democrats already passed it before in 2010, but as usual the republicans filibustered it,..

The President won't even release his college records.

Completely transparent? Bullshit.

 

[The T]

i find it funny the dems would do this after Obama screamed he was going to be transparent and didnt even do that and now that the dems are losing this they have to go screaming foul.

I guess anyone who stays in that party is just blind, oblivious or both.

Obama has been completely transparent, and has released his tax returns for 12+ years, why won't Willard?

You know, Obama would veto this if it applied to this years election.

He would sign it in an instant. Obama and the dems are strongly against crooks trying to throw elections with secret funds. Not to mention the democrats already passed it before in 2010, but as usual the republicans filibustered it,..

The President won't even release his college records.

Completely transparent? Bullshit.

Any wonder why I call him Black_FABLE?

 

[Black_Label]

Probably because you have not read it.

I have read it, have you?

Of course. I read the last one, too, and can tell you what is not in this one that was in the last one. And I can tell you what's new in this one.

I don't rely on media to tell me what is in a bill I can read for myself. The last time around, the media did not report the most vile parts of the DISCLOSE Act. I think I was one in a million people who actually read it and saw those parts.

Now they are gone from this one.

But some new stuff is in there.

That's good to hear. You should be more than well informed to explain why you side with the GOP blocking transparency to major donors to political campaigns?