[quote]Senate Republicans narrowly blocked Democratic campaign finance disclosure legislation in the Senate Tuesday after raising concerns the bill would..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Party of No strikes again.

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 06:38
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 769
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:59 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Senate Republicans narrowly blocked Democratic campaign finance disclosure legislation in the Senate Tuesday after raising concerns the bill would curb freedom of speech and tilt campaign spending in favor of the Democrats.

A 57-41 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed for the Senate to cut off debate on the measure. Republicans unanimously opposed the measure while Democrats solidly backed it.

Democrats said the legislation -- known as the DISCLOSE Act -- would bring greater transparency to campaign contributions from corporations, labor unions, and other special interests, which were able to ramp up political spending in the wake of the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission earlier this year.

The bill would require organizations paying for political advertising to disclose the names of their top donors in the ads, similar to what now is required of political candidates for federal office.

Republicans accused Democrats of trying to preserve their majorities in the House and Senate by skewing the rules in the favor of labor unions, trial lawyers, and other Democratic-leaning groups. Democrats denied that was their motive, and made certain changes to the bill last week aimed at satisfying GOP critics.

The Republicans were not mollified.

Democrats "fear the righteous judgment of the American people in this coming election," warned Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who spearheads the Senate Republicans' election effort. "So they're trying to change the rules in the middle of the game to suppress the speech of those who might disagree" with them.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, slammed the bill as a "partisan effort, pure and simple."

"This bill is about protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of this November's election," he said. It's an "all-out assault on the First Amendment."

Democrats accused Republicans of going back on their pledge to find a way to add transparency to political giving after the Citizens United ruling. They argued that without the new law, special interests will run roughshod over voters' interests.

"The Supreme Court decision was a true step backwards for this democracy," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington. "It allowed corporations and special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of their money influencing our democracy and it opens the door wide for foreign corporations to spend their money on elections right here in the United States."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said the bill was "about trust and confidence in our democracy." The measure "asks us to put the people before the special interests," he argued. Let in "the sunlight that disinfects our democracy."

Now explain to me; how does disclosing who paid for what campaign become an "all-out assault on the First Amendment"?? Corporations can now fund campaigns; what's wrong with the people knowing who's funding what?

It's PURE Party of No, and it's in the interest of Republicans for donors to stay anonymous, given corporate interests are most often invested in them. But the arguments they use are absurd to me...how do they get it twisted to say it's "protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of this November's election"? Anyone can give to anyone; all it does is let us know WHO is donating to WHOM. Unless there's something to hide, what's wrong with that?

The only thing I see wrong with it, truly, is that it would be going along with something, ANYTHING, the Democrats put up--despite the fact that numerous Republicans have backed the idea of doing just this. Again; they propose/back things, then the minute Obama and/or the Dems are for the same thing, suddenly they're against it.

More and more I'm beginning to believe those who say the Repubs WANT things to stay bad, both to get their own guy elected in 2012 and because then HE'd get the credit for fixing it. The idea is abhorrent, but more and more their actions speak to the possibility...

NOT the Tea Party--whatever argument I have with them, I believe their intentions are good. But I think they're being manipulated by the GOP, whose intentions are anything BUT, and the T will have to go their way in the end, so they're a voting block the GOP wants. Damned shame; wait until/if they get the chance to see what their votes have bought them!


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of __________________, code name ‘Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 2:40 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


I can see a few problems with the DISCLOSE Act. As Opencongress.org notes, "Notably, the bill would exempt all long-standing, non-profit organizations with more than 500,000 members from having to disclose their donor lists." This would probably exempt a bunch of union PACs from disclosure. Now which party do unions usually support?
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/show





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:24 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Which side does the NRA usually support?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:34 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I'm not sure why anyone should be excluded. Either everyone does it, or no one does. That's only fair.

--Anthony


Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:30 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I'm not sure why anyone should be excluded. Either everyone does it, or no one does. That's only fair.



Kinda what I was thinking, but there seem to be notable exceptions on BOTH sides.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:21 AM

MALACHITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
I can see a few problems with the DISCLOSE Act. As Opencongress.org notes, "Notably, the bill would exempt all long-standing, non-profit organizations with more than 500,000 members from having to disclose their donor lists." This would probably exempt a bunch of union PACs from disclosure. Now which party do unions usually support?
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/show





Thank you for adding this point. I was having a hard time seeing why the Republicans were filibustering this. From your point, it almost looks like the democrats are being a bit nefarious, making a bill in which predominantly Republican donor organizations would have to disclose, and then trying to use their majority to force it through.

ETA: The republicans still get portrayed as the "party of no" for this even though they seem to have a good reason for filibustering-- I didn't hear your point on the usual media outlets I'm exposed too which are supposedly "neutral". That is annoying to me.

I'm with the others who say, "fair is fair" -- make them all disclose... I don't see how transparency for all parties is a problem...

Also, has anything been done to limit the amount and type of "gifts" congressman can receive from lobbyists yet?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:08 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I agree, there should be no exceptions. I didn't know about that, thank you. Nonetheless, I think Republicans would have opposed it even if it were perfect...what haven't they opposed, even when modified to include their suggestions?

I don't know what the excemptions are for both sides, so I can't speak to that. But given the Supremes have granted corporations "people status", a decision which I think is horrific, this is one way they were trying to equal it out, at least let us SEE who's paying for what.

I tend to think there are as many "non-profits" on both sides. Republican organizations are well-funded, like Heritage Foundation, etc., and some of those who "created" Tea Party groups...and aren't nonprofits prohibited from involving themselves in politics, or did that fall by the wayside with the Supremes' decision too?

Either way, I'm sure there are those, like the NRA, on both sides; for me, the big problem is the lobbyists and corporate interests who have been given the new ability to put people in office; I want to know who's behind what. I don't think it's "nefarious"--how many nonprofits out there come CLOSE to donating even a hundredth of what big corporations now can? It was aimed at corporate interests, Big Oil, Wall Street, Big Pharma, the Insurance lobby, etc., they are the most egregious money men I can see backing candidates with their agenda.

So yes, I think EVERYONE who contributes to campaigns should be accountable for disclosure, no exceptions. I just don't know if it would have passed no matter WHAT the Dems did.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of __________________, code name ‘Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:51 AM

MALACHITE


Yes, "nefarious" was a bit too strong of a word. "Suspicious" may have been a better word choice. It would have been nice if the democrats would have just modified the transparency in the bill to be all inclusive...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 6:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Agreed.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name ‘Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 19:17 - 3 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 19:05 - 1 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:13 - 7497 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
US debt breaks National Debt Clock
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:13 - 33 posts
The predictions thread
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:15 - 1189 posts
The mysteries of the human mind: cell phone videos and religiously-driven 'honor killings' in the same sentence. OR How the rationality of the science that surrounds people fails to penetrate irrational beliefs.
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:11 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:05 - 4762 posts
Sweden Europe and jihadi islamist Terror...StreetShitters, no longer just sending it all down the Squat Toilet
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:01 - 25 posts
MSNBC "Journalist" Gets put in his place
Sun, November 24, 2024 12:40 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL