• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

GOP blocks Disclosure Act in the Senate

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,359
10,254
136
So the GOP pushes for more identification for ordinary people to vote yet want donors who give more then $10,000 to super-pacs to remain secret?

These same Republicans who were in favor of full disclosure when the talk was of limiting donations have now flip-flopped and are blocking it.

Remember this $10,000 disclosure requirement applies to everyone so what's the problem?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/how-did-senators-vote-on-the-disclose-act/2012/07/16/gJQALt4ppW_blog.html
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Rather than treat all sides equally as a true reform bill would, it contains special carve outs for union bosses and other favored interest groups,&#8221; Brown said Monday.
So because the bill applies the rules unfairly (protects the Dem supporters) the Republicans are blamed for killing it.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,481
4
76
So because the bill applies the rules unfairly (protects the Dem supporters) the Republicans are blamed for killing it.
Like every single "disclosure" act democrats come up with, they ALWAYS have exemptions for unions. ALWAYS. And that's why repulibicans are against the democrats bullshit shenigans. Any disclosure bill libtards come up with is aimed squarely at going after republican donors while protecting democrats.

Look at the PAC money, Most of the top 10 are unions and donate overwhelming democrat, nearly 100%.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,525
42
86
so what's the problem?
You know the answer to this question, you just want to continue being a partisan hack.

Considering the political climate, which sparks a lot of anger in some people, it is perfectly justified to want to protect the privacy of donors. If the public on the whole (not 50% of the public, not 80%, but 99.9999%) would treat the information responsibly and respectfully, then there wouldn't be any problem. But, there is a significant percentage that has proven themselves to be a real danger to people involved in politics.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,564
293
126
`(e) Covered Organization Defined- In this section, the term `covered organization' means any of the following:
`(1) A corporation (other than an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
`(2) An organization described in section 501(c) of such Code and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code (other than an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of such Code).
`(3) A labor organization (as defined in section 316(b)).
`(4) Any political organization under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, other than a political committee under this Act.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,716
20,074
136
Are you saying their are no special carve outs in the bill for union bosses and other favored interest groups by Dems? Link please. Or are you just trolling?
Was there some memo that was circulated where the burden of proof suddenly got switched to the person not making a claim? Do you have a copy or are you just trolling?
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,176
135
106
But its for the children! Damn those republicans. Every school must have 16 administrators each making $78k a year with a 6 figure pension and retiring at age 54. And if you dont like it, it means you hate the children, and you might be al qaeda.

God... people are so stupid they eat this crap up and ask for seconds.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
Like every single "disclosure" act democrats come up with, they ALWAYS have exemptions for unions. ALWAYS. And that's why repulibicans are against the democrats bullshit shenigans. Any disclosure bill libtards come up with is aimed squarely at going after republican donors while protecting democrats.

Look at the PAC money, Most of the top 10 are unions and donate overwhelming democrat, nearly 100%.
Care to back that up? Today's union membership, way below its prime and still declining, contributes more to elections than the corporations that have the biggest war chests they've ever had? Gimme a break. It doesn't pass the smell test. BTW, your claim cannot be substantiated because donations to "spookypacs" do not require disclosure. Guess where the big money is going?

Union and corporate money in elections....You can't allow one without the other. I err on the side of requiring full disclosure by EVERYONE for political donations, but I'd bet my left nut that the GOP wouldn't support it because it would even the playing field of anonymous political donations.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,481
4
76
Care to back that up? Today's union membership, way below its prime and still declining, contributes more to elections than the corporations that have the biggest war chests they've ever had? Gimme a break. It doesn't pass the smell test. BTW, your claim cannot be substantiated because donations to "spookypacs" do not require disclosure. Guess where the big money is going?

Union and corporate money in elections....You can't allow one without the other. I err on the side of requiring full disclosure by EVERYONE for political donations, but I'd bet my left nut that the GOP wouldn't support it because it would even the playing field of anonymous political donations.
You can see the break down here. Look at the unions and the money and the dem support. This is pretty well known fact that the top contibutors are unions with overwhelming dem support. Everybody really does know this.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php?Type=C&cycle=2008

PAC Name Total Amount Dem Pct Repub Pct
National Assn of Realtors $4,020,900 58% 42%
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $3,344,650 98% 2%
AT&T Inc $3,108,200 47% 52%
American Bankers Assn $2,918,143 43% 57%
National Beer Wholesalers Assn $2,869,000 53% 47%
National Auto Dealers Assn $2,860,000 34% 66%
International Assn of Fire Fighters $2,734,900 77% 22%
Operating Engineers Union $2,704,067 87% 13%
American Assn for Justice $2,700,500 95% 4%
Laborers Union $2,555,350 92% 8%
Honeywell International $2,515,616 52% 48%
National Assn of Home Builders $2,480,000 46% 54%
Air Line Pilots Assn $2,422,000 85% 15%
Credit Union National Assn $2,362,899 54% 46%
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $2,321,842 97% 3%
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $2,316,559 95% 5%
Service Employees International Union $2,285,850 94% 6%
American Federation of Teachers $2,283,250 99% 1%
Teamsters Union $2,248,950 97% 3%
National Air Traffic Controllers Assn $2,210,475 80% 20%
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
The Articles of Confederation would've rendered the point of lobbying moot provided that it wasn't illegally replaced by pro-business, anti-market forces. After all, most Americans back then opposed replacing it because they were smarter than the general population today and because they knew the Articles of Federal Republic were pro-business rather than pro-market.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,716
20,074
136
The Articles of Confederation would've rendered the point of lobbying moot provided that it wasn't illegally replaced by pro-business, anti-market forces. After all, most Americans back then opposed replacing it because they were smarter than the general population today and because they knew the Articles of Federal Republic were pro-business rather than pro-market.
Maybe we'd be smarter than the geniuses of yesteryear if we didn't have you dragging us down.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
So the GOP pushes for more identification for ordinary people to vote yet want donors who give more then $10,000 to super-pacs to remain secret?

These same Republicans who were in favor of full disclosure when the talk was of limiting donations have now flip-flopped and are blocking it.

Remember this $10,000 disclosure requirement applies to everyone so what's the problem?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/how-did-senators-vote-on-the-disclose-act/2012/07/16/gJQALt4ppW_blog.html
Organizations with large memberships . Don't want or need to be disclosed and I agree 100% . You have no right to know where money is coming from. Or we go completely underground. Thats worse
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,716
20,074
136
Organizations with large memberships . Don't want or need to be disclosed and I agree 100% . You have no right to know where money is coming from. Or we go completely underground. Thats worse
Why do you care? I thought there wasn't going to be an election here in the fall so it hardly seems to matter who gives to campaigns.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
So the GOP pushes for more identification for ordinary people to vote yet want donors who give more then $10,000 to super-pacs to remain secret?

These same Republicans who were in favor of full disclosure when the talk was of limiting donations have now flip-flopped and are blocking it.

Remember this $10,000 disclosure requirement applies to everyone so what's the problem?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/how-did-senators-vote-on-the-disclose-act/2012/07/16/gJQALt4ppW_blog.html
Really, you are going to compare voter ID's to Campaign Funds Disclosure? Pfft, nice one
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Well if a GOP senator said it, it must be true!
Did you look at the contents of the bill or are you going by the Washington Post article?

The Dems are starting to bury poison pills in the GOP type legislation to get a political edge. If the common view of a bill goes through, the GOP side gets screwed by the pill. If the GOP catches the pill, the main intent is used to bash them, ignoring the poison pill that was inserted.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,481
4
76
Did you look at the contents of the bill or are you going by the Washington Post article?

The Dems are starting to bury poison pills in the GOP type legislation to get a political edge. If the common view of a bill goes through, the GOP side gets screwed by the pill. If the GOP catches the pill, the main intent is used to bash them, ignoring the poison pill that was inserted.
Gotta hand it to the republicans! They're actually READING bills before they sign or vote on them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,716
20,074
136
Did you look at the contents of the bill or are you going by the Washington Post article?

The Dems are starting to bury poison pills in the GOP type legislation to get a political edge. If the common view of a bill goes through, the GOP side gets screwed by the pill. If the GOP catches the pill, the main intent is used to bash them, ignoring the poison pill that was inserted.
I'm not going on anything right now. I know the general aspects of the bill and that labor unions are covered in the definitions. It's clearly not a good idea to take an opposed politician's word for why they opposed the bill because...well... they constantly lie and we all know this.

If there is actually parts of the legislation that are intended to exempt certain classes from disclosure for partisan advantage then that's a good reason to oppose the bill. I haven't seen any though.

EDIT: As far as poison pill amendments go, they're hardly news. SOP for a very long time for everyone.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,570
2
0
Was there some memo that was circulated where the burden of proof suddenly got switched to the person not making a claim? Do you have a copy or are you just trolling?
But you didn't ask him to prove it, you claimed (albeit in casual form)that it was false. That is a separate claim and thus the burden of proof is on you to prove it false.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,716
20,074
136
But you didn't ask him to prove it, you claimed (albeit in casual form)that it was false. That is a separate claim and thus the burden of proof is on you to prove it false.
Nope, it sure doesn't.

If someone says 'the moon is made of cheese' and I say 'bullshit', the burden of proof has not suddenly shifted to me to go prove that it's made of rock. He made a claim that there were specific elements of the legislation that exempted Democratic friendly constituencies. The burden of proof is on him to supply such information.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,570
2
0
Nope, it sure doesn't.

If someone says 'the moon is made of cheese' and I say 'bullshit', the burden of proof has not suddenly shifted to me to go prove that it's made of rock. He made a claim that there were specific elements of the legislation that exempted Democratic friendly constituencies. The burden of proof is on him to supply such information.
But without proof your "bullshit" statement has no more basis than his claim. But if you're fine with toddler style yes-no-yes-no arguments, by all means continue.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY