Disclose Act Vote Railroaded By Mitch McConnell WASHINGTON -- A bill that would have forced unlimited secret campaign spending out into the open was blocked by Republican leaders because they see the "immediate financial advantage" that secret money is giving GOP candidates in the 2012 election, one of the bill's Democratic sponsors charged on Wednesday. The vote against the Disclose Act represented a remarkable turnaround for Republicans, who have long supported disclosure as an alternative to campaign donation limits. In fact, 14 of the GOP senators who voted against debate on the bill this time around supported a nearly identical bill in 2000. "A great number of our colleagues abandoned positions that they had held very clearly and very publicly for a long time," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who was joined by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) at a press conference to announce next steps after Republican senators blocked debate on the bill Monday, and then again on Tuesday. McConnell, who himself has frequently expressed support for disclosure in the past, has more recently taken to calling it a Democratic plot to limit free speech and intimidate donors from participating in the electoral process. ...But to suggest that transparency inhibits free speech is an unusual argument to make, given the longstanding Republican and Democratic commitment to the principle that secrecy breeds corruption, and that transparency is the antidote. And while the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision shattered limits on corporate spending on political campaigns, it specifically asserted that there was no right to do so anonymously. "When people say it's not about the money, it's about the money," said Whitehouse. "If you take a look at where the money is going -- the secret money -- it's going by a factor of many multiples to Republicans," he said. ...The Disclose Act would have required any independent group that spends more than $10,000 on campaign ads during an election cycle to file a report identifying any donors who gave $10,000 or more. ...Both Whitehouse and Merkley called attention to one aspect of the disclosure fight that hasn't gotten a lot of attention: The fact that some secret money may be coming from abroad. As for next steps outside Congress, Merkley said, "We need to have a massive citizens' movement." Merkley also called for increased corporate accountability and enforcement of IRS rules to prohibit political spending by groups with anonymous funders. Whitehouse said that "the only logical thing to conclude" about entities that spend large amounts of money in secret to influence elections is that their motives are "not good for America" and "not good for the American people." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/disclose-act_n_1683573.html
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................................................ Dang, I'll be glad when the election season is over and all the sheep go back to graze in the field.
I'm fine with the disclosure aspect. But the Dems clearly want to talk about the contributors and not run on their record. It can wait until after the election. The rules shouldn't change this late in the game. Plus, I think we all have a pretty good idea who the donors are. It's such a secret that their names are frequently reported on HuffPost plenty.
I like cash in an envelope. Wasn't there some Louisiana politician who had cash hidden in his freezer recently?
The obvious solution is to wait and see who controls congress next term. If you haven't read the bill, you have no clue what you're suggesting. It could have a tax hike as a rider and no republican would vote for it for that reason alone.
Why is that the obvious solution? Is it your opinion that this would be good law only if one party was in control but not the other? Oh my god, it could also contain a clause that requires immediate execution of all people with the surname "Jones". Don't you think if it had a tax hike included, Republicans would be denouncing it on that basis? I haven't heard anything about that, so I suspect your hypothetical is merely a hypothetical. barfo
I think waiting is typical of how govt. works. Close the barn door after the horse has escaped - and live with the useless regulation for perpetuity. The Bill is also a campaign year gimmick. Republicans would be fools to give Dems a club to beat the over the head with. BTW, a republican congress passed McCain-Feingold, which immediately gave up their soft money fundraising advantage. Dems won both houses in 2006 and the presidency in 2008 with enormous funds advantage. As for me, I'm happy both candidates can spend $1B this time instead of one side having a 4-1 advantage.
OMG, it contained a clause exempting the big Democratic donors from disclosure requirements. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/17/politics/senate-disclose-act/index.html "By conveniently setting high threshold 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 beneath the Federal Election Commission's regulatory radar," McCain said. McCain argued that local union chapters would not have to disclose payments from individual members if the amount was less than $10,000.
