• 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."

GOP blocks Disclosure Act in the Senate

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
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.
I dug and read the bill before posting. Poison pill inserted as union exemption.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,524
13,532
136
Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider
I haven't had time to search out the particulars, but here is something I found.

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/opinio...r-labor-money/

I haven't had time to verify it but the claim is that there are loopholes which allow unions to bypass reporting if individual member donations are less than 10k. The aggregate isn't what counts. Is this true?
So, uhh, even McCain engages in dishonest fantasy scenarios?



Organizations that engage in political conduct are only required to disclose payments to it that exceed $10,000 in a two-year election cycle. Meaning, the local union chapter will not be required to disclose the payments of individual union members to the union, even if those funds will be used for political purposes. What is the final difference between one $10,000 check and 1,000 $10 checks? Other than the impact on trees, very little. So why should one be free from having to disclose its origin?
Yeh- it *could* happen, and is about as likely as Bigfoot holding a press conference, too... Unions haven't gone out of their way to conceal their spending or the source of the money, at all- they wear it all as a badge of honor. That can't be said of Repub groups, at all.

So, uhh, what sort of amendments did Repubs offer that would demand more disclosure rather than less? None, as near as I can tell, which makes McCain's offering a concern troll...

Repubs are adamantly opposed to extensive disclosure requirements, because their funders are opposed, but they'll say anything to make it appear otherwise.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
This is why I hate republicans. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Not to mention the lack of critical thinking, research, facts, and in many cases decent grammar.

Why do you think I have walked away from my own party? They go around spreading bullshit about cutting spending and then push us to the brink of bankruptcy within 2 terms after Clinton cleared the deficit. They lie constantly about Obama just to stain his image, meanwhile voting against him on damn near everything because they fear that if the people saw what Obama could really do (i.e. make this country not third world again) they would refuse to vote Repub again and turn Obama into FDR 2.0....
 
Last edited:

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,186
1,328
126
People once again fail to see the bottom line.
Not to mention (which I will) disclosure was, once upon a time, originally an republican idea.
They ran on this. Republicans fought reform but all supported disclosure.
Now they don't.
You make the call.

But the bottom line here is witnessing the creation of the perfect storm of corruption.
A. Kill disclosure.
B. Elect Mitt Romney-Nixon the next president.
C. Mitt Romney-Nixon's beholden to Charles BeBe Robozo (i.e. Sheldon Adelson).

I remember watergate. it wasn't pretty. Entertaining maybe, but nothing pretty to look at.
Romney's hiding his past by hiding his tax returns. His alliance with those like Sheldon Adelson. A real felony nibbling at his heals. Inconstancy with explanations. And so much more. The perfect storm of political corruption in the making.
Mitt Romney-Nixon. Making good TV, but bad president.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Funny how the dimlibs supposedly want disclosure, but then want to exempt unions and other scum from such disclosures. Hypocrites as usual.

Carry on with your faux outrage though.
 

hardhat

Senior member
Dec 4, 2011
353
53
91
`(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.
That quote specifically outlines organizations that this bill applies to. It specifically required labor organizations (unions) and corporations (except not-for-profit corporations) to disclose any contributions for political purposes to organizations that have spent over $50,000 in the last 12 months to supports politicians one way of another.

This bill is almost a mirror of the previous disclose act that passed the house in 2010, except that it is expanded to cover 'corporations are people too' aftermath from citizens united. I'm amazed this didn't pass. It wasn't about democrat or republican, it was about transperancy in advertising and after all of McCain's work to reform political finance I'm increadibly dissappointed in him and the others who blocked the bill.

Edit: And Brown's comment is almost rediculous. The only clause in the bill that talks about "union bosses" (organized labor) is the one outlined above, and you don't have to be a genius to read the bill and see it does nothing to differentiate between corporations and unions.
 
Last edited:

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,422
10,326
136

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,422
10,326
136
Funny how the dimlibs supposedly want disclosure, but then want to exempt unions and other scum from such disclosures. Hypocrites as usual.

Carry on with your faux outrage though.
Again for the thinking impaired, disclosure applies to all donations over 10K. This includes everyone! Everyonne!

Did I say everyone?!?
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
Republicans only want disclosure when it cannot be used against them. They want full disclosure by voters in all these states but non-disclosure when it comes to their donations. This is the mentality that has taken over this party.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
77,569
10,644
126
Oh, having said all that, I still dont see any legitimate problems with a Voter ID or more thorough background checking at the polls.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Again for the thinking impaired, disclosure applies to all donations over 10K. This includes everyone! Everyonne!

Did I say everyone?!?
For the reading impaired... from Haya's post earlier:
Organizations that engage in political conduct are only required to disclose payments to it that exceed $10,000 in a two-year election cycle. Meaning, the local union chapter will not be required to disclose the payments of individual union members to the union, even if those funds will be used for political purposes. What is the final difference between one $10,000 check and 1,000 $10 checks? Other than the impact on trees, very little. So why should one be free from having to disclose its origin?
So basically, another hypocritical attempt by the dimlibs to try to restrict donations to the gop while pretending to want disclosure.

Beyond that, in the current age of PC with a leftist media, it's important that people be able to donate anonymously so they don't have to face personal attacks and character smearing by the left wing media when they donate. I'm not so sure I want any kind of disclosure on either side.
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
Can we all agree w\ how dirty politicians are?

They clearly have something to hide and we should not have such people making decisions that effect our entire country.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,422
10,326
136
For the reading impaired... from Haya's post earlier:
So basically, another hypocritical attempt by the dimlibs to try to restrict donations to the gop while pretending to want disclosure.

Beyond that, in the current age of PC with a leftist media, it's important that people be able to donate anonymously so they don't have to face personal attacks and character smearing by the left wing media when they donate. I'm not so sure I want any kind of disclosure on either side.
Simple answer 100,000 checks for $10 is a democracy
One check for $1,000,000 is a closer to a dictatorship

Puts a stake in the heart of one man, one vote.

Republicans want to isolate themselves from criticism when they run ads about Obama not being an american or the birther stuff. If the GOP want voters to show extra ID at the polls what's the problem with this?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY