PDA

View Full Version : Senate Republicans block DISCLOSE Act.



Qtec
07-17-2012, 12:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Senate Republicans blocked a bill Monday evening to increase transparency in campaign spending by independent groups.</span>

In a 51-44 vote, the DISCLOSE Act failed to obtain the 60 votes needed to clear <span style='font-size: 20pt'>a Republican filibuster.</span> The bill would have required disclosure of anyone who donates to independent groups that spent more than $10,000 on campaign ads -- or their functional equivalent -- and other election spending.

The bill was not expected to beat back the Republican filibuster, which was led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). McConnell, called the "Darth Vader of campaign finance reform" in the past, recently made news by giving a series of speeches declaring that campaign finance disclosure amounted to nothing short of harassment and a suppression of speech. In one op-ed for USA Today McConnell called the DISCLOSE Act "un-American" and "an attempt to identify and punish political enemies, or at the very least, intimidate others from participating in the process."

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) was the primary sponsor of the legislation and will lead a series of floor speeches from Senate Democrats into the early hours of Tuesday to protest the Republicans' filibuster.

The Republican filibuster came after decades of statements by various Republicans that, while they opposed restrictions on campaign finance, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>they vehemently supported full disclosure.</span>

"We need to have real disclosure," McConnell said as recently as 2010 in a debate over the first iteration of the DISCLOSE Act. The 2010 version of the bill, which included provisions that went beyond simple disclosure, also was blocked by a Republican filibuster in a 59-41 vote.

Republicans once considered staunch supporters of campaign finance disclosure, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) one of the two primary co-authors of the 2002 campaign finance reform bill, voted to block it. </div></div>

Now that they are getting most of the secret money, they dance to another tune. No surprise there.


Q

eg8r
07-17-2012, 02:08 AM
LOL, freaking flip floppers. Transparency never mattered during the drafting of the HC bill or the rest of the Obama presidency. Now the idiot lefties have their panties in a wad because their fund raising isn't what they expected.

eg8r

LWW
07-17-2012, 02:56 AM
Why did you leave out the part about the bill giving special protections to unions?

Soflasnapper
07-17-2012, 10:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, freaking flip floppers. Transparency never mattered during the drafting of the HC bill or the rest of the Obama presidency. Now the idiot lefties have their panties in a wad because their fund raising isn't what they expected.

eg8r </div></div>

You are very confused, based on these statements.

Try to hold a thought in your mind for a couple of minutes.

As a past critic of Obama's lack of transparency, whether that is a correct criticism or not, it seems you USED TO favor transparency.

Now, you have nothing to say in favor of transparency, just that the loser lefty idiots now want it.

So did you never favor it yourself, and only use it as a convenient argument because you could aim it at the Obama administration?

Or did you at one time favor it, and realize now that you have changed your mind, that it's a stupid concept?

Or if rather, you always and still favor transparency, still if the GOP tells you it's no longer what THEY believe, you simply stuff your own beliefs back in your pocket and mouth what you are told to say?

LWW
07-17-2012, 12:21 PM
Why did you leave out the part about the bill giving special protections to unions?

Soflasnapper
07-17-2012, 05:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also questioned the timing of the bill and argued that it would chill speech and lead to and potentially invite intimidation of donors whose identities were revealed. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>He and other Republicans said that although the language in the bill is the same for unions and corporate interest groups</span>, in practice the measure would benefit unions.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78576.html#ixzz20vNsk1TH
</div></div>

It's difficult to discuss the part of the bill that favors unions, by its use of identical language to describe the treatment of unions and corporate interests.

By using identical language that applies to both, it would seem they both must be treated the same.

So perhaps you want to flesh out how the same exact language will favor unions over corporate interests?

Or more likely, cannot and therefore will not?

Have you ever realized that things you think as so, are not? Ever?