Republicans block campaign finance disclosure bill

[MotF Bane]

Well, for one thing, Iran and North Korea hate the US less and are more rational and reasonable than the Republican party today.

Go visit Iran or North Korea. Make sure to tell them you're an American. Let us know how that goes for you. :awe:

 

[MotF Bane]

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/text

Here's the full text of the bill for those interested.

110 convoluted pages to say the same thing is 13 different ways.

"No more debate! We don't have time to debate! Vote now!"

That thing is a fucking mess.

 

[mav451]

Err so where exactly in the bill does it say unions are exempt? If you're gonna claim something, please point it out - I'm interested in how "Congress-speak" would word such a thing.

 

[Tristicus]

How can you be surprised?

I've been saying for years how much they hate America.

So that is why you voted in Bush?

 

[Darwin333]

It also says that any entity holding a contract for offshore oil and gas exploration is forbidden from making contributions.

Of course, Obama already blasted the GOP, and claimed (lied) that all the law does is "make them put their name on TV ads".

What about the various other mineral companies that work on land, including Federal lands? Can a coal miners union make contributions?

 

[Craig234]

Because NK and Iran are more reasonable. Nah that's not it, they are just as stubborn as the Republicans

BTW I'm kidding, I'm not out there like Craig.

No, you have bigger problems. But one of the smaller problems is that you can't tell what's partly tongue in cheek (but not entirely).

The 'how is Obama going to negotiate with other countries if he can't get Republican votes' was too pathetic for much response, as are your comments, for different reasons.

 

[QuantumPion]

This is hilarious. The GOP, who were outspent $730m to $333m in the 2008 Presidential election, don't want any reform?

I might even agree with them. Obama might hit $1b in 2012 while the GOP sends another lamb to slaughter.

Your argument is completely illogical. It would be like saying you are surprised some democrats are not in favor of gun control, even though republicans own 3 times as many guns as democrats. It doesn't matter which party spends more, the point is that the law is unconstitutional.

 

[jackschmittusa]

If the Republicans were for any kind of transparency, let them jump up and tell us what they would change.

Getting a little tiresome that they just oppose, never offer anything constructive.

Put up or shut up! What would they put in such a bill? Or, specifically, why such a law should never happen.

IMHO, political donations as free speech is a stretch anyway, but anonymity as a right too? How does that serve the citizens?

Still considering whether corporations sucking a huge government tit should be allowed to do what might be a conflict of interest by supporting in a big way those that give them access to the tit.

 

[Red Dawn]

No, you have bigger problems. But one of the smaller problems is that you can't tell what's partly tongue in cheek (but not entirely).

The 'how is Obama going to negotiate with other countries if he can't get Republican votes' was too pathetic for much response, as are your comments, for different reasons.

That's rockin good news, if you were to have agreed with me it would mean I was on the lunatic fringe.

 

[PeshakJang]

If the Republicans were for any kind of transparency, let them jump up and tell us what they would change.

Getting a little tiresome that they just oppose, never offer anything constructive.

If the Republicans gain the majority in November, then introduce their own "campaign finance transparency reform", do you expect the Democrats won't do the same thing?

Put up or shut up! What would they put in such a bill? Or, specifically, why such a law should never happen.

What do the Dems have to gain from this bill? What does any political group have to gain from this?

Would the Dems write a bill like this in an election year, in which their chances of losing the majority seem to be greater and greater every day, if it harmed their chances in any way?

Like I said, they have a bill that is a win-win for them, and a lose-lose for the Reps. If it's written in such a way as to help the Dems more than the Reps, they can either get it passed and it's a success, or if the Reps block it, they get to scream, "They are against transparency!!", which is the case now.

IMHO, political donations as free speech is a stretch anyway, but anonymity as a right too? How does that serve the citizens?

Still considering whether corporations sucking a huge government tit should be allowed to do what might be a conflict of interest by supporting in a big way those that give them access to the tit.

I agree with that being a conflict of interest... but is the problem really about who gets elected, or the actions of those that do get elected?

Why don't they start on some of the promises of transparency that Obama made while campaigning, most of which were completely ignored, first?

 

[thraashman]

how do we expect Obama to negotiate with Iran and North Korea when he can't convince 1 republican in 40 to vote to end a filibuster so he can move his party's agenda through congress?

Iran and North Korea are actually significantly more reasonible and less crazy than American Republicans are.

 

[Sinsear]

Iran and North Korea hate the US less and are more rational and reasonable than the Republican party today.

You've got to be kidding me. Oh nvm, it's craig.

 

[Sinsear]

Iran and North Korea are actually significantly more reasonible and less crazy than American Republicans are.

Craig has 2 accounts?

 

[daishi5]

The talk a couple weeks ago was that this bill would require the five or six largest donors to a group to appear in the advert saying "I'm Grover Moneybags and I approved this message", thus reducing precious and expensive air time for actually giving the message as well as giving the progressives good targets for their anger and boycotts. Democrat groups like unions were specifically exempted. Sounds like yet another attempt by the Dems to stack the deck in their favor, punishing the newer grass roots conservative groups whilst protecting older liberal groups. Haven't read the bill though. They also bought NRA support by inclusion which points to a need for new leadership in the NRA - selective freedom is not a win.

The explanation the NRA gave seemed reasonable to me, even if it is not perfect. (The following is a synopsis of their argument, not mine) The bill as written with no exemption would have prevented the NRA from any campaigning because (they say) they are a government contractor that helps with firing ranges. The NRA works to preserve the 2nd amendment, and they would have been crippled in that goal by this law. Therefore they opposed this law, not on 1st amendment grounds, but on the grounds it stopped them from protecting the 2nd. They feel it is a 1st amendment issue, but they do not work to protect the 1st amendment, they are a strictly one issue organization. The exemption allows them to continue to protect the 2nd amendment as before, so they no longer oppose it.

 

[BoomerD]

The big corporations who own our political process and players on both sides, aren't about to let them pass any bill that will reign in their ability to influence the voters.

I've gotten so dammed cynical about the entire political process that, even though I'll continue to vote, I'm disgusted with both sides.

BOTH sides are equally guilty in selling out to the money.

We've gone from being a nation of "We the People," to a nation of "We the Corporations."

If the corporations could eliminate the rights of the peons to vote, and just install the "temp workers" in office that they want, without having to spend the money and time of elections, they'd be happy as hell.

 

[Patranus]

The big corporations who own our political process and players on both sides, aren't about to let them pass any bill that will reign in their ability to influence the voters.

I love it when people say "big corporations own the political process" when they do not have a single vote.

Here is an idea, if a politician votes for legislation you don't like, don't vote for them. The problem will take care of itself.

 

[MotF Bane]

Craig has 2 accounts?

Looks it.

 

[Craig234]

The big corporations who own our political process and players on both sides, aren't about to let them pass any bill that will reign in their ability to influence the voters.

I've gotten so dammed cynical about the entire political process that, even though I'll continue to vote, I'm disgusted with both sides.

BOTH sides are equally guilty in selling out to the money.

Both sides are TOO guilty, not equally guilty.

I can name a good number of one side's politicians - Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, Pete Stark, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee for a few to start - who are not guilty of what you say. People who somehow have won office without the sort of corporatist collaboration you and I are against.

The other side does not have the counterpart. They are much more consistently corrupt.

As I've long said, support the one group who is much less corrupt. Not ay Republicans anymore, not the corporatist Democrats, but the progressives.

We've gone from being a nation of "We the People," to a nation of "We the Corporations."

If the corporations could eliminate the rights of the peons to vote, and just install the "temp workers" in office that they want, without having to spend the money and time of elections, they'd be happy as hell.

Your points are pretty right on, but why are you afraid to acknowledge the one group who still is more for the people, is it scary to 'look possibly partisan' for being accurate?

 

[William Gaatjes]

I'm all for transparancy.

I'll wait for info until making a judgement. So far I've seen this bit of info which was omitted from the article the OP posted:



I do think we should prevent foreign corporations from spending on our elections.

But I don't understand why government contractors should be prohibited, likewise for TARP banks etc. I don't see why the company's CEO needs to appear in any ad either.

I'm guessing the Repubs opposed this because they are expecting donations from contractors and maybe Wall Street banks (although the latter heavily favored Obama last time IIRC).

Why can't they just pass a freakin bill requiring disclosure? Do we really need all this other stuff in it?

Fern

It seems that the current president received also a lot of donations from people connected to investment banks as for example Goldman Sachs.. Is this true ? This is not really strange , though. If i would do research for funders, would i find certain people connected to AIPAC ?
I have seen Bush sr, Bush jr and Obama at AIPAC congresses.
Bill Clinton i am not sure but i would not be surprised. I do know Hilary Clinton has been to meetings/congresses of AIPAC. Which is not a strange thing. If you want money for your campaign, you make sure you become friends with AIPAC. But be careful not to betray the expected trust or it will become a thrust...

 

[BoomerD]

I love it when people say "big corporations own the political process" when they do not have a single vote.

Here is an idea, if a politician votes for legislation you don't like, don't vote for them. The problem will take care of itself.

The corporations don't need to cast a single vote...they control the money. If a politican doesn't suck the corporate teat, where are they gonna get the mega-bucks to fund an election campaign? Certainly not from Joe Citizen...

"We the People" get to vote on the candidates that we're given.

Both sides are TOO guilty, not equally guilty.

I can name a good number of one side's politicians - Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, Pete Stark, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee for a few to start - who are not guilty of what you say. People who somehow have won office without the sort of corporatist collaboration you and I are against.

The other side does not have the counterpart. They are much more consistently corrupt.

As I've long said, support the one group who is much less corrupt. Not ay Republicans anymore, not the corporatist Democrats, but the progressives.



Your points are pretty right on, but why are you afraid to acknowledge the one group who still is more for the people, is it scary to 'look possibly partisan' for being accurate?

Craig, I've been a Democrat all my adult life. I've NEVER voted for any candidate with the (R) behind his/her name...but, for the first time, I did NOT vote for the Democrat in the last presidential election. I voted for a 3rd party candidate even though I knew I was "throwing away" my vote for someone who had less than a "snowball's chance in hell" of actually getting elected.
While I agree that the Dems are at least slightly more "for the people," they're still all a bunch of corporate whores.

IMO, the USSC has become totally corporate controlled.

 

[hal2kilo]

Guess who is exempt in the legislation
(Hint: Unions)

I love how the "progressives" hate on big corporations and give a pass to big spending unions.

I see you uh.. forgot.. to mention the NRA.

 

[Craig234]

The corporations don't need to cast a single vote...they control the money. If a politican doesn't suck the corporate teat, where are they gonna get the mega-bucks to fund an election campaign? Certainly not from Joe Citizen...

"We the People" get to vote on the candidates that we're given.

Yup.

Craig, I've been a Democrat all my adult life. I've NEVER voted for any candidate with the (R) behind his/her name...but, for the first time, I did NOT vote for the Democrat in the last presidential election. I voted for a 3rd party candidate even though I knew I was "throwing away" my vote for someone who had less than a "snowball's chance in hell" of actually getting elected.
While I agree that the Dems are at least slightly more "for the people," they're still all a bunch of corporate whores.

IMO, the USSC has become totally corporate controlled.

I understand you, to a point. But here's the issue.

I have no problem with your concerns for, say, Barack Obama, with his top private donor bring Goldman Sachs, for example (or Hillary with her Wal-Mart director background).

But you talk about 'the dems' like they're all the same. I've said I think there's an internal war between the corporatists and the progressives or populists.

You just seem to pretend people like the ones I name don't exist - while they are the only ones not tied to the corpotocracy the way you say you want.

You're killing your own agenda by doing that - ignoring 'your' politicians instead of supporting them.

One final point, as bad as you might feel about even the corporatist Dems, it should be clear to you that you have a 'bad' and 'worse' situation, not two equals.

Look at the government since Reagan, look at it 2001-2006, and compare that to the bills Nancy Pelosi's House has passed (most of them killed in the Republican Sentate filibuster).

There's a big difference, even while both sides have plenty of problems, one is far 'less bad'.

If the populists can't get any support from anti-corporatists like you, how can they possibly defeat the corporatists' big budgets?

Edit: no offense intended, but for all the case you make against the Obama ticket, I can't see it as anything less than incredibly irresponsible not to have voted for it to block Palin.

 

[Patranus]

I see you uh.. forgot.. to mention the NRA.

The conversation was against corporations. Unions stand against the corporations that employ them. That is why unions in terms of this conversation was a more relevant group to bring up.

I don't care if its unions, the NRA, or any other special interest group. Either the law is applied equally across the board or it is a bad law.

 

[BoomerD]

Yup.



I understand you, to a point. But here's the issue.

I have no problem with your concerns for, say, Barack Obama, with his top private donor bring Goldman Sachs, for example (or Hillary with her Wal-Mart director background).

But you talk about 'the dems' like they're all the same. I've said I think there's an internal war between the corporatists and the progressives or populists.

You just seem to pretend people like the ones I name don't exist - while they are the only ones not tied to the corpotocracy the way you say you want.

You're killing your own agenda by doing that - ignoring 'your' politicians instead of supporting them.

One final point, as bad as you might feel about even the corporatist Dems, it should be clear to you that you have a 'bad' and 'worse' situation, not two equals.

Look at the government since Reagan, look at it 2001-2006, and compare that to the bills Nancy Pelosi's House has passed (most of them killed in the Republican Sentate filibuster).

There's a big difference, even while both sides have plenty of problems, one is far 'less bad'.

If the populists can't get any support from anti-corporatists like you, how can they possibly defeat the corporatists' big budgets?

Edit: no offense intended, but for all the case you make against the Obama ticket, I can't see it as anything less than incredibly irresponsible not to have voted for it to block Palin.

Sorry Craig...two wrongs don't make a right. Even though the thought of Palin in a national office was (and still is) disgusting to me, voting for Obama was something I could not do.

Do you seriously believe that the politicans you've named don't accept campaign funds from the corporations and PAC's? If so, that's incredibly naive.

The major problem with our political system is the money and its sources. Even though I was a union member for most of my working life, and willingly signed the dues check off that allowed them to spend my dues on politics, I would not, and do not, object to prohibiting unions from spending money on politics...IF the corporations also are prohibited from doing so.

Political campaigns should be funded by donations from private citizens and the election fund. NO donations of more than $100 from any one person, no donations from anyone who's not a resident of the state (state elections) and each person should have a limit on how much he/she can donate in total during a year. (<$1000)

BUT, as I've said repeatedly, the corporations who own our politicans and our political process ain't a'gonna let it happen.

The American politician...the best money can (and does) buy.

 

[BoberFett]

Well, for one thing, Iran and North Korea hate the US less and are more rational and reasonable than the Republican party today.

Craig must have been molested by somebody in a Nixon mask. That's the only reasonable explanation.