DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Republicans block Campaign Finance Measure...

Los Los Angeles Tiempos

Republicans block campaign finance measure

Democrats say the fight over the DISCLOSE Act will continue, and they try to tie the GOP to corporate interests.

By James Oliphant, Tribune Washington Bureau

July 28, 2010

Reporting from Washington

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a vote on a bill that would force special interest groups to disclose their donors when purchasing political ads, defeating an effort to impose new campaign finance regulations before the November congressional election.

As the Senate's 41 Republicans voted in unison to filibuster the bill, Democrats vowed to bring the legislation up again. "This fight will continue," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the bill's sponsor.

The result had been expected, as Democratic leaders failed to round up the necessary 60 votes to move the bill forward, and came a day after President Obama spoke in favor of the bill from the White House Rose Garden.

Even so, Democrats saw an opportunity to use the debate Tuesday to tie the GOP to corporate interests. That has emerged as a key election-year line of attack. "Make no mistake: With today's vote, we're picking sides," Schumer said on the floor.

Republicans, in turn, said the bill was a politically motivated attempt to curb free-speech rights.

"This bill is about protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of this November's elections," said Senate minority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "It's a transparent attempt to rig the fall elections."

The legislation, a form of which has passed the House, was offered in response to a Supreme Court decision this year, in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, that erased federal limits on campaign expenditures for corporations, labor unions and interest groups. Limits still exist on the amount that corporations or individuals can directly contribute to campaigns.

As a result, companies, unions and so-called front groups can spend millions of dollars on political advertisements without restraint. The Senate bill, known as the DISCLOSE Act, would force issue groups to reveal their donors as well as require corporate chief executives to record messages saying they stand by their ads.

The act also would bar government contractors, foreign-controlled corporations and companies that received federal bailout funds from making campaign-related expenditures.

The bill contains an exemption for large, multi-state organizations, such as the National Rifle Assn., which angered some Democrats, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Feinstein ultimately voted Tuesday to end debate and move forward to a floor vote.

___________

As long as the Democrats includes Unions in this bill to disclose their information, then this bill should be passed..

Quote:

---

The Senate bill, known as the DISCLOSE Act, would force issue groups to reveal their donors as well as require corporate chief executives to record messages saying they stand by their ads.

---

Are the labor union heads also going to have to record these same messages?

Politics at its finest at work here. OK ...... maybe its worst.

I don't see how this would pass Constitutional challenges. If donations are protected as Constitutional free spech, then I don't see how requiring statements from someone would be Constitutional. Democrats know that .... but will try to use legislation as an issue. The "nice" thing for Democrats is that it cannot go to the Court until it is signed into law ...... so Democrats can blast away without even passing it.

Let the spin begin!

Wouldn't the democrats also be affected by this because I'd imagine a lot of their campaign dollars come from businesses? The logic of both of these parties never ceases to amaze me.

Tell me where in the constitution an organization (corporation or union) is provided the rights of an individual and I will agree. Corporations are formed for commerce, unions are formed for workers, neither has any constitutional right.

The rights of a corporation or union is the subject of "laws and regulations" passed by local, state and federal governments, they have no individual or citizen rights.

Corporations are run by people.

Can a business run by a single individual contribute to a campaign? How about 2 people in business together? What is the cut off point?

Yea well, Roberts Alito, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas disagree with you. Constitutional fundamentalism seems like "common sense" when people frame it as some sort of perfect static force field to protect the individual against great faceless tyrannies. It's all just so black and white, so not open to interpretation and so unaffected by the changing lenses of time and society. Gotta get back to that perfect constitutional society we used to have in this country, when it was more free and open... when was that exactly? I guess sometimes going way back might mean something entirely different.

The spin that came out not 1/4 second after this bill went down to filibuster was that this was engineered for democrats to protect seats in October. You bet the dems wanted to pass this thing because overall it stands to benefit them most in October. Not because it's "engineered" to only help them. The single biggest conservative vote driving lobby, namely the NRA, netted a major exemption in the bill. It's not nearly so cut and dry. This was the Repubs holding the party line of "NO" on everything until October and then spin spin spin t on any outlet that would broadcast it. They are MASTERS at turning a potential negative into them somehow protecting the American people from lurking evils around every corner and hidden in every bill. It's truly impressive. Anyway, the Dems won't get a lot of mileage on this. The average voter doesn't care enough or even think about campaign finance reform enough even though it's one of the biggest issues challenging our democracy in this county. Most voters don't really understand the ruling and they're buying the line from the news outlets and corporate puppets that it's not really going to effect any vote really so much. I guess we really shouldn't expect any swift boat or willy horton style ads this fall. Just lots of wholesome "paid by concerned citizens for any candidates against corporate oversight" and "families united against the maniacal socialist homosexual agenda" spots. One thing's for sure, It's gonna get interesting.

It depends on the type of corporation that you are talking about. When I discuss a corporation, the reference is towards a "C" corp.

For an individual or a partnership it would be unusual to see a "C" corp, which is the form of most larger business. Generally the preferred option for small business is a "S" corp or a LLC.

"S" corps have the profit flow to the owners as taxable income. There is a bit of a difference when the money is yours, then you choose to to give it to a political entity.

For the most part corporations are formed to limit individual liability. There are other advantages, but the corporation has the ability to pool a vast amount of resources, something that an individual cannot generally do.

You bet that I disagree with the decision as it is a gross misrepresentation of a freedom reserved for the individual. 4 justices agreed with me.

I do not like the carve out for the NRA or any other special interest group. To me an organization (corporate, union, advocacy group, non-profit, etc, etc) is different than a person or citizen. Their activities can and should be regulated.

I'm kinda wondering why anyone would oppose campaign finance reform.. what are they hiding? Or trying to hide?

Historically, every time this comes up it's written in such a way to protect Democratic donors and harm Republican donations. That's as I understand it anyway...that was why so many people in the Republican base don't like McCain, as he wrote the original that was struck down by the Supreme Court.

I personally have no problem with campaign finance reform either way as long as it's done in a way that is completely equitable to all parties. Honestly, the best reform that could happen would be something that would allow a third party a shot at competing...the way things work right now the Dems/Repubs get all kinds of money from the government itself that third parties can't get access to without something major changing.

To me it comes down to "who is paying" for that politician. I mean, I don't want to sound cynical, but let's be honest, if an industry puts big money in a campaign (either in the light of day or as soft money) they do so in order to back a campaign that gets them something in return.

So, with that in mind, I'd like to know who's backing who.

If the Drug industry is backing a candidate, you can bet, they want something from that candidate that will benefit thier industry.

So yeah I'd like a database that tells me who is backing who.

I agree with you, Charger. Emphatically. The fight here is to keep something hidden or keep it from being tracked back. Anyone concerned about that "full light of day" disclosure must be ashamed, shady, nefarious with dark designs, or worse. The expansion to "free speech" was a reach and a leap. I feel there has been massive abuse of this by some groups, and I hate it. SwiftBoating didn't improve America or preserve or polish its heroic status in the world. Some of those most interested in secrecy seem to be most needful of it to cover skulduggery. Any group who abuses this should be denied with penalties. I would like to see it bar character assassination and personal ad hominem attacks. Might stop altogether then; these do not seem to crow about one person's ability; instead they demean and diminish in pretty smarmy and skanky les or insinuations. WHy some idiots feel I have to be poisoned by this about forty dozen times is beyond me. I am okay for everyone ponying up info with the cash; nothing runs without named person's approval.

They'd all look like NASCAR drivers.

Quote:

---

That way, whenever a congressman or senator gets in front of a camera, we'll all know who is really doing the talking.

---

LOL I know for sure they wouldn't like that..

One thing,, I'd want it the law to be written and applied so that it hits all parties candidates equally and with the same eye on things.

Quote:

---

The fight here is to keep something hidden or keep it from being tracked back.

---

Actually, the attempt is to uneven he odds by applying a law to one side that would not apply to donors on the other side. It has also already been shot down as unconstitutional on a far broader basis. Frankly, I don't see any way this one would suddenly be seen as constitutional.

Aa far as lies and such .....any group or person who libels another is open to civil prosecution. I would like to see some of these cases settled in court.

This bill is a political attempt to word a law to damage one side while leaving the other sid'es "dirty little secrets" intact. The Democrats know that this stands no chance of passing in its present form, and they are going to try to make a political issue out of it, rather than trying to make good law. The Democrats could have shoved this thing through when they had a majority that was fillibuster-proof ..... but didn't. They didn't because it would have gone for almost immediate Supreme Court review, and would have died quickly, and died as a political issue as well.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a full and open disclosure of all campaign contributions to all groups and campaigns, with complete disclosure, and a method of ensuring that all such contributions fall within legal limits. However, to do so you have to somehow "get the politics out of politics" first, and then have a law written that passes Constitutional muster. Given that the first part appears competely beyond the ability of Congress as it is currently constituted, it seem unlikely period.

"And up to speak next on bill reform 345-98676383 is Senator Johnson, sponsored by Trojan."