Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He is amazing. A great deal like Paul Wellstone.
Who?
This is really not funny. It does however add weight to the assertion that some people will vote for any assclown, as long as that assclown has the right letter after their name. Shame.
The Obama campaign will not be pleased, having to change the nationality of all overseas donors to "USA". That's a lot of book-cookin'.Al Franken: Putting an End to Secret Campaign Contributions
Which brings me back to the DISCLOSE Act. This bill doesn't overturn Citizens United. It doesn't limit how much money individuals or corporations can spend on independent expenditures. All it does is require that this spending be disclosed publicly. It reflects what used to be a bipartisan consensus around the effectiveness of transparency and disclosure in avoiding corruption.
But today -- unless, again, I'm pleasantly surprised -- all the Republicans in the Senate, including those who have specifically called for more disclosure in our system, will once again block it from proceeding.
In our country, a few have a lot more money than the rest. In our political system, money is power. And that means a few can have a lot more power than the rest. That's bad news for everyone else -- and for our democracy itself. And although we've always argued over how best to prevent that from happening, today's vote is yet another sign that some have decided to embrace that shift instead.
What it looks like is that as long as the Party of No has a big enough head count to cause pain, we are screwed on any attempt to make this system less corrupt.
^ Photoshopped
Looks like it was a typical, convoluted, Congressional mess of a Bill.The Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) supported the introduction of the DISCLOSE Act, but withheld its support when special interest exemptions were provided.
Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), a major opponent of the current bill, stated that the majority has drafted a bill behind closed doors without Congressional hearings or markups. He argues that politics is driving the bills introduction and future passage.
In a press statement, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue criticized the House Democratic majority for passing legislation that violates the principles of fairness and equality, as prescribed by the Constitution. Further, he argued that the bill’s passage resulted from backroom deals with special interest groups and unions who “mask the movement of political money.”
The DISCLOSE Act was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which claimed that it "would inflict unnecessary damage to free speech rights and does not include the proper safeguards to protect Americans' privacy. The bill would severely impact donor anonymity, especially those donors who give to smaller and more controversial organizations."
Al Franken: Putting an End to Secret Campaign Contributions
Which brings me back to the DISCLOSE Act. This bill doesn't overturn Citizens United. It doesn't limit how much money individuals or corporations can spend on independent expenditures. All it does is require that this spending be disclosed publicly. It reflects what used to be a bipartisan consensus around the effectiveness of transparency and disclosure in avoiding corruption.
But today -- unless, again, I'm pleasantly surprised -- all the Republicans in the Senate, including those who have specifically called for more disclosure in our system, will once again block it from proceeding.
In our country, a few have a lot more money than the rest. In our political system, money is power. And that means a few can have a lot more power than the rest. That's bad news for everyone else -- and for our democracy itself. And although we've always argued over how best to prevent that from happening, today's vote is yet another sign that some have decided to embrace that shift instead.
What it looks like is that as long as the Party of No has a big enough head count to cause pain, we are screwed on any attempt to make this system less corrupt.
By conveniently setting high thresholds for reporting requirements, the DISCLOSE Act forces some entities to inform the public about the origins of their financial support, while allowing others most notably those affiliated with organized labor to fly below the Federal Election Commissions regulatory radar.
Since Paul Wellstone is dead, I'm having trouble reading between the lines on what you just said.
