hortysir
In Memorial of 47
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
Democrats To Present The Disclose Act
- Thread starter Black_Label
- Start date
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
Registered Democrat
- Jun 20, 2012
- 6,306
- 510
- 48
- Thread starter
- #22
Because there was no such thing. McConnel is talking out of his ass and spreading lies as usual.
hortysir
In Memorial of 47
This is definitely an issue we can agree on, BL.
I'll be contacting Nelson and Rubio tomorrow.
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
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
Registered Democrat
- Jun 20, 2012
- 6,306
- 510
- 48
- Thread starter
- #25
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
Registered Democrat
- Jun 20, 2012
- 6,306
- 510
- 48
- Thread starter
- #26
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
Retired USAF Chief
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
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
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
Diamond Member
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.
Moonglow
Diamond Member
I believe that this bill has been reintroduced from last year. I think it started in 2009 to get it passed.
Black_Label
Registered Democrat
- Jun 20, 2012
- 6,306
- 510
- 48
- Thread starter
- #33
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
Last edited:
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,723
- 1,830
But Michelle Malkin told them something different. Do you expect them to believe their lying eyes?
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,723
- 1,830
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
And every time it has been filibustered by the Republicans.
Black_Label
Registered Democrat
- Jun 20, 2012
- 6,306
- 510
- 48
- Thread starter
- #38
Which is true. The GOP garbage wants to keep secrets and hide their masters at all costs. What a bunch of trash.
Wiseacre
Retired USAF Chief
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
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,865
- 2,040
yeah, like we know who all Donated to him.
get real, we know what this all about...too damn bad, it FAILED
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Cory Booker is mad that his constituents' lawsuit against Smith & Wesson got tossed by SCOTUS- Started by marvin martian
- Replies: 3
-
Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada are likely here to stay, U.S. ambassador insists- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
