Disclose Act Fails in Senate

[lerapt78]

The Act was voted down this evening 51 to 44.

http://www.congress.org/news/disclos...ils-in-senate/

Bill sponsor Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) explained the late-night session as necessary to highlight the need for the bill. “Putting an end to secret election spending by special interests is an essential step in protecting middle class priorities. For that reason, we are committed to continuing the debate on the DISCLOSE Act late into the night and asking for a second vote tomorrow if need be,” Whitehouse said in a statement before the vote. “We can’t let the special interests off the hook after just one round.”

The legislation would require covered entities to report donations of $10,000 or more to their political activities, in a bid to provide new sunlight to the funding of third-party expenditure groups known as super PACs.

Either way,Sen. Harry Reid will likely push for another vote.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by lerapt78

The Act was voted down this evening 51 to 44.

http://www.congress.org/news/disclos...ils-in-senate/



Either way,Sen. Harry Reid will likely push for another vote.

...which will also fail. Political theater.

[catholictiger]

Originally Posted by lerapt78

The Act was voted down this evening 51 to 44.

http://www.congress.org/news/disclos...ils-in-senate/



Either way,Sen. Harry Reid will likely push for another vote.

good

to the act being voted down not what harry reid will do.

plus even if it gets through the senate it will not get through the house.

[lerapt78]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

...which will also fail. Political theater.

I hope so.

Originally Posted by catholictiger

good

to the act being voted down not what harry reid will do.

plus even if it gets through the senate it will not get through the house.

I'm leaning toward "happy" about the results as well. When I first learned of the Disclose Act, I thought "great!", now we can really investigate special interest groups and how they may be influencing policy. But after I learned that the act would require organizations to turn over member lists I felt the cold hand of Big Brother on the back of my neck. Just goes to show how politicians present all their ideas in such a rosy light.

[Jaypeeto4]

Thank God this was voted DOWN, literally.

The OSTENSIBLE reason for the proposed Law was to force campaigns to disclose all their donors so that billionaire special interests couldn't buy elections.
Good idea, so it sounds, but for special interest groups backing it, THAT was not the real reason for the bill.

Radical leftists and radical this, that and the other groups,
who LOATHE organizations which fight their agendas, such as gay marriage being enforced as a right nationwide, want the NAMES of anyone who donates $25 or so to these groups (like Concerned Women for America, etc) so that they can get them in trouble with their job's Diversity Committees, have people protest outside their homes, etc, if they give large enough gifts, and in other ways INTIMIDATE traditional-values advocates to STOP supporting Traditional values causes,
by publicizing their names and addresses so that they can be harassed and terrorized.
These intimidation techniques are ALREADY being used across America, with proFamily and proLife activists being targeted for death threats, hate mail, job firings, boycotts and even arrests on trumped-up charges. One proFamily group leader, in Maine, is being slapped with a Million Dollar Lawsuit to shut HIS group down, by an activist who in the past was convicted of sexual activity with a minor (a 14 year old boy), who was his lover.
And he is apparently being helped and advised by the town's sheriff.
This stuff is no joke.

This proposed Law must NEVER be allowed to see the Light of Day,
and all who voted for it need to be targeted for Defeat, this year, without mercy or
second thoughts.

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by lerapt78

The Act was voted down this evening 51 to 44.

http://www.congress.org/news/disclos...ils-in-senate/



Either way,Sen. Harry Reid will likely push for another vote.

If only Reid would work this hard to get a budget passed.......

[lerapt78]

Originally Posted by Jaypeeto4

Thank God this was voted DOWN, literally.

The OSTENSIBLE reason for the proposed Law was to force campaigns to disclose all their donors so that billionaire special interests couldn't buy elections.
Good idea, so it sounds, but for special interest groups backing it, THAT was not the real reason for the bill.

Agreed, although I have to say I would be in favor of the bill as long as it disclosed the names of organizations only. When it comes to the government collecting info on private individuals, that raises a red flag to me.

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

If only Reid would work this hard to get a budget passed.......

Priorities, priorities.

[Jeffrey]

Special interests will just donate $9999.99 at a time.

Originally Posted by lerapt78

The Act was voted down this evening 51 to 44.

http://www.congress.org/news/disclos...ils-in-senate/



Either way,Sen. Harry Reid will likely push for another vote.

[Dawnia]

If this passed, I could see a lot of dead people and pets donating to campaigns.

[lerapt78]

Originally Posted by threedogday

Do you have any proof, or at least a few links that support your allegations.
Personally, I would like to know who and how much is contributing to campaigns. It makes sense, doesn't it?

Yes, it makes sense to see who is contributing to campaigns. When you realize though, what is in the rest of the bill (what the politicians don't declare as loudly), the apparent goodness of it takes on a different edge.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Special interests will just donate $9999.99 at a time.

Perhaps. It really depends on the organization and how much money they are contributing. If one had $30K to donate, then it would be quite simple to make three separate donations. But when you're looking at huge amounts of money, it may not be feasible to do so, though I ackowledge I'm not sure how it works on a governmental scale. When I worked for a private credit company, I found it much easier and cost-efficient to cut a larger check and specify how the funds were to be allocated versus making several different transactions.

[Dawnia]

Originally Posted by threedogday

Do you have any proof, or at least a few links that support your allegations.
Personally, I would like to know who and how much is contributing to campaigns. It makes sense, doesn't it?

It'd be nice to know what organizations and corps give to campaigns, but not individual donors. People usually don't get too worked up over political campaigns, but hot button issues are another story.

You wouldn't be so hot to have your name released for donating to one side or the other on issues like gay marriage. There are some nasty people on both sides out there that have no problems targeting and attacking. (not a lot of news coverage though)

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...rice-of-prop-8

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/19prop8.html

[lerapt78]

Originally Posted by Dawnia

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...rice-of-prop-8

My, my. I never knew "anti-bigots" could be so bigoted.

[_Abyssinia]

Disclose Act Voted Down Twice After Pro-Life Opposition

NRLC’s letter goes to the heart of the free speech concerns the DISCLOSE Act presents:

NRLC is the furthest thing from a “shadow” group. Our organization’s name and contact information always appear on our public communications, and we openly proclaim the public policies that we advocate. But there is very little in this bill, despite the pretenses, that is actually intended to provide useful or necessary information to the public. The overriding purpose is precisely the opposite: To discourage, as much as possible, disfavored groups (such as NRLC) from communicating about officeholders, by exposing citizens who support such efforts to harassment and intimidation, and by smothering organizations in layer on layer of record keeping and reporting requirements, all backed by the threat of civil and criminal sanctions. Indeed, the bill would benefit from a truth-in-labeling amendment to clarify that “DISCLOSE” actually stands for “Deterring Independent Speech about Congress except by Labor Organizations and Selected Elite”

All of the cant by backers of this legislation about “buying elections” and “protecting democracy” is intended to obscure the reality that neither National Right to Life nor any other incorporated group has any power whatever to “influence elections,” no matter how much money is available, except by informing and persuading individual citizens – all of them adults with a presumed capacity to make up their own minds about which messages they will accept and act on. It is precisely that process of informing and persuading that the crafters of this legislation fear and seek to suppress – all the while seeking to hide their self-serving purposes behind layers of sanctimonious, pseudo-populist rhetoric

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, agrees with the assessment and his group also opposes the bill

“Here is a Washington riddle for you: How do you know when Democrats are worried that this election cycle might be bad for them?” he said. “When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pushes for a vote on limiting free speech. Once again the beleaguered Majority Leader, fearful the word “Majority” will be removed from his title if his party does poorly this November, is pushing for a vote on the Obama/Pelosi/Reid version of campaign finance”

“The bill purports to be even handed in its treatment of political players, but the reality is that it is designed to give labor unions a pass,” Perkins explained. “And the bill’s structural favoritism of labor unions is no surprise. From 2005 to 2011, labor unions spent $4.4 billion supporting liberal candidates and causes, including pushing for same-sex marriage and unrestricted abortion. In 2011 the AFL -CIO alone spent $316 million, which is an enormous figure, especially considering that 2011 was a nonelection year. In short, Reid and President Obama’s claims of “unfairness in the system” are largely bogus claims in an effort to further create a system that favors them”

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/17/d...ife-opposition

[lerapt78]

Originally Posted by threedogday

What's in the rest of the bill that has you worried?

Donating organizations are required to turn over member lists to the government.

[catholictiger]

Originally Posted by lerapt78

I hope so.



I'm leaning toward "happy" about the results as well. When I first learned of the Disclose Act, I thought "great!", now we can really investigate special interest groups and how they may be influencing policy. But after I learned that the act would require organizations to turn over member lists I felt the cold hand of Big Brother on the back of my neck. Just goes to show how politicians present all their ideas in such a rosy light.

exactly private organizations shouldn't be forced to turn over anything if they haven't done anything criminal. They may choose to release that information if they want to but they shouldn't be required to by the government.