Senate Repubs block donor transparency

[Jhhnn]

And then obfuscate around the fact-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../23/AR2010092304578.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics

Cornyn's remarks are truly weaselish-

cynical, partisan bill designed to silence the free speech of Congress's critics and to protect Democrat incumbents.

Obviously, it does no such thing, but the faithful will lap it up like a dog will drink antifreeze...

Don't get me wrong- I'm all in favor of Free Speech, but I think people need to own what they say, let us know who's paying to broadcast it across the nation.

Repubs obviously don't. Apparently, they don't want too any people to find out how many of their support groups are funded by a few rich & radical rightwing donors...

 

[Anarchist420]

It's Unconstitutional, it violates the 1st and 10th Amendments, and protects the establishment. It also favors some groups over others. The NRA favored this, and people will just vote for the corporatists anyway.

Most rich people are liberals FYI.

 

[spidey07]

Was the union exemption still in the bill?

 

[cubby1223]

This vote was more about the parties getting an extra talking point to boost their election hopes.

The question is, does someone have the right to make a statement anonymously?

To quote Obama: "A partisan minority in Congress is hoping their defense of these special interests and the status quo will be rewarded with a flood of negative ads against their opponents," Obama said. "It's a power grab, pure and simple."

What a hypocrite, what is he doing but unleashing the first of negative "ads" against his opponents in support of the bill. It's a power grab on his side too.

 

[Jhhnn]

This vote was more about the parties getting an extra talking point to boost their election hopes.

The question is, does someone have the right to make a statement anonymously?

To quote Obama: "A partisan minority in Congress is hoping their defense of these special interests and the status quo will be rewarded with a flood of negative ads against their opponents," Obama said. "It's a power grab, pure and simple."

What a hypocrite, what is he doing but unleashing the first of negative "ads" against his opponents in support of the bill. It's a power grab on his side too.

Pretty lame, cubby- everybody would have to live by it, not just repubs...

And the question really is do people have a right to fund attack ads anonymously...

 

[Circlenaut]

I don't god damn care if this is unconstitutional or not, or if it benefits a particular party over another. There is way too much money and business interests going into politics and it will undermine our republic eventually. This bill would have been a step towards the right direction. The idea that spending money is equivalent to me opening my mouth is absurd! We all have an equal voice but unequal wealth.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't god damn care if this is unconstitutional or not, or if it benefits a particular party over another. There is way too much money and business interests going into politics and it will undermine our republic eventually. This bill would have been a step towards the right direction. The idea that spending money is equivalent to me opening my mouth is absurd! We all have an equal voice but unequal wealth.

Thank you, Pippy. Well said.

Add this to the reading-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/us/politics/24donate.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1

Just one example of what really is a giant money laundering scheme...

 

[her209]

We all have an equal voice but unequal wealth.

That's because you're lazy. Work harder slave!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So one more time, with feeling...

I don't god damn care if this is unconstitutional or not

Thank you, Pippy. Well said.

Then we have this charming comment.

They clearly intend to destroy the economy and the power of the govt and egalitarian democracy

Apparently "egalitarian democracy" means that people are free to support your POV only.

I suspect that is is unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS would ultimately have to decide on that, believe it or not. Why? Because I don't recall in the last ruling where there were exceptions blocking contributions. That's the issue the Republicans are having, because the groups selected were those who benefit them, but it looks like the language exempts labor from limits or disclosure.

What they should have done (but it wouldn't have been as self serving) was to require disclosure on ANY donation above a certain amount and let that go. Chances are that some of the Reps would have gone along with it, and we'd have disclosure, but this bill never really did that. But that's probably OK since it's advancing The Cause, and any means justifies that, right?

Tell your boys to get it right and if the Reps don't let it pass, I'll give them hell. I'll be waiting a long time to do it I'm sure.

 

[Craig234]

So one more time, with feeling...

Or, if you better understood what he was saying:

Pippy:
There is way too much money and business interests going into politics and it will undermine our republic eventually. This bill would have been a step towards the right direction. The idea that spending money is equivalent to me opening my mouth is absurd! We all have an equal voice but unequal wealth.

Jhhnn:
Thank you, Pippy. Well said.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Or, if you better understood what he was saying:

I read it in it's entirety. I can understand frustration in political funding, and I frankly am irked in how it functions, however "not caring" is a significant statement which was glossed over by him. I don't believe that you or I would have done that.

Hopefully someone will come up with a true "Disclosure Act", where all parties (not just political) bear the same burden of disclosure, something I heartily agree with.

 

[Infohawk]

Generally I'm a fan of transparency but one thing that's worried me lately is that things are so partisan such donations could be held against the donor by third parties. Imagine a donor being vilified for supporting a pro-gay marriage candidate in a conservative area or an anti-mosque candidate in a liberal area.

 

[Craig234]

I read it in it's entirety. I can understand frustration in political funding, and I frankly am irked in how it functions, however "not caring" is a significant statement which was glossed over by him. I don't believe that you or I would have done that.

Hopefully someone will come up with a true "Disclosure Act", where all parties (not just political) bear the same burden of disclosure, something I heartily agree with.

But 'glossed over' to agree with the larger point isn't the same as directly endorsing that secondary point, as your post claimed, when it cherry picked only that phrase.

 

[MotF Bane]

Thank you, Pippy. Well said.

Add this to the reading-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/us/politics/24donate.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1

Just one example of what really is a giant money laundering scheme...

Yeah, who cares about the Constitution anyways?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But 'glossed over' to agree with the larger point isn't the same as directly endorsing that secondary point, as your post claimed, when it cherry picked only that phrase.

Look at it this way, when someone makes declarative statements about that which he doesn't know or is so careless to not understand the full context of what has been said, then I smack him. Call it a failing on my part if you like.

As to campaign reform I'd move for an amendment (yeah I know, good luck) that would completely do away with how elections are funded. There would be no war chests, but people may give (and corporations are "people" too- that cuts both ways) up to a predetermined amount and there would be limits on the total funds that could be acquired. That's all that can be spent. "Donated" time is calculated at open market advertising rates.

Other parties reaching a certain threshold of support have access to public matching funding to give the marketplace of ideas a real chance. They aren't guaranteed funding to match the Big Two, but they would have money to get their ideas out, and if they are accepted then supporters would need to make the difference.

You see I'm a lot more reform minded than some might suspect, but I insist it be done by the proper means and apply to all equally.

 

[dawp]

I don't god damn care if this is unconstitutional or not, or if it benefits a particular party over another. There is way too much money and business interests going into politics and it will undermine our republic eventually. This bill would have been a step towards the right direction. The idea that spending money is equivalent to me opening my mouth is absurd! We all have an equal voice but unequal wealth.

it already has.

 

[Craig234]

Look at it this way, when someone makes declarative statements about that which he doesn't know or is so careless to not understand the full context of what has been said, then I smack him. Call it a failing on my part if you like.

As to campaign reform I'd move for an amendment (yeah I know, good luck) that would completely do away with how elections are funded. There would be no war chests, but people may give (and corporations are "people" too- that cuts both ways) up to a predetermined amount and there would be limits on the total funds that could be acquired. That's all that can be spent. "Donated" time is calculated at open market advertising rates.

Other parties reaching a certain threshold of support have access to public matching funding to give the marketplace of ideas a real chance. They aren't guaranteed funding to match the Big Two, but they would have money to get their ideas out, and if they are accepted then supporters would need to make the difference.

You see I'm a lot more reform minded than some might suspect, but I insist it be done by the proper means and apply to all equally.

I'm not taking issue with your position on reform, just with your misrepresenting, IMO, Jhhnn's position.

If someone introduced a post laying out a good case for repealing the constitution's provision that a child born here to illegals is a citizen with the phrase 'I don't care what the consitution says, I think it's wrong that...', and someone response to their post with agreement, it doesn't mean they endorsed ignoring the constitution.

You seem set on trying to force that false interpretation, and not to be willing to address the error reasonably just trying to 'dodge' withdrawing it by repackaging the attack or rewording it. Just acknowledge that that phrase was clearly not what Jhhnn was responding to, and that your cherry picking it as the only phrase you quoted followed by Jhhnn's endorsement was a misrepresentation of what Jhhnn was saying.

This has nothing to do with you pointing out someone talking about something they know nothing about, only with you misrepresenting.

I don't think you did it intentionally; I suspect you just got caught up in your reaction, but it's time for you to fix the error.

 

[CycloWizard]

I would support a tax raise to give equal funding to everyone on a ballot for federal office. The current election scheme is a scam through and through, and it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

 

[Jhhnn]

The issue of constitutionality is an obvious red herring. There is no intent to limit contributions, as with McCain-Feingold, but rather to make it apparent who's saying what, and who's paying for it.

All the political free speech you can pay for vs all the anonymous political free speech you can pay for. That's the distinction, despite all of the other dishonest fol-de-rol being bandied about.

This is precisely the same kind of obstructionism repubs have used ever since losing the majority in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to do anything, and they control 41 of 100. I will allow that a few republicans have broken ranks often enough to allow the republic to barely function, particularly the Maine republicans, and I thank them.

 

[theeedude]

Thank you, Maine, for voting those "moderate" scumbags Snowe and Collins in.

 

[Jhhnn]

Generally I'm a fan of transparency but one thing that's worried me lately is that things are so partisan such donations could be held against the donor by third parties. Imagine a donor being vilified for supporting a pro-gay marriage candidate in a conservative area or an anti-mosque candidate in a liberal area.

Yeh, imagine the personal responsibility Righties claim to champion so fervently.

Think about it. Notice any contradictions?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not taking issue with your position on reform, just with your misrepresenting, IMO, Jhhnn's position.

If someone introduced a post laying out a good case for repealing the constitution's provision that a child born here to illegals is a citizen with the phrase 'I don't care what the consitution says, I think it's wrong that...', and someone response to their post with agreement, it doesn't mean they endorsed ignoring the constitution.

You seem set on trying to force that false interpretation, and not to be willing to address the error reasonably just trying to 'dodge' withdrawing it by repackaging the attack or rewording it. Just acknowledge that that phrase was clearly not what Jhhnn was responding to, and that your cherry picking it as the only phrase you quoted followed by Jhhnn's endorsement was a misrepresentation of what Jhhnn was saying.

This has nothing to do with you pointing out someone talking about something they know nothing about, only with you misrepresenting.

I don't think you did it intentionally; I suspect you just got caught up in your reaction, but it's time for you to fix the error.

He (like some others) is correct in that money plays the major part in elections. He's also correct that the Republicans aren't going to want to cut of donations to their party. What he misses are the exceptions which apparently exclude unions and groups favorable to Democrats.

Republicans would be nuts to cut off their financial testicles, but agree to let the Dems have no limitations or disclosure. I don't know if he simply didn't know that or if he approves.


My suggestion of a Constitutional change isn't made likely. The SCOTUS isn't likely to rule in favor of restrictions, especially if one party benefits. Money still determines who wins with few exceptions.

As strange as it may sound my problem with the current system is that your group, the Progressives and others have no voice. You are in truth powerless, hoping that someone will at least consider your POV in government. You hope for crumbs from the table, because you are outside the mainstream. You have about as much chance of having your way as the Religious Right with abortion. Sure the Reps said a lot, but what actually happened? Nothing.

Instead I'd like a system where you and others have a chance, a real chance to be heard and your ideas, not Democratic political considerations. Wouldn't you like your plans for health care to have a fair hearing and a chance to convince that they are worth voting for?

For all the differences between you and I, I think you should have a shot at it. I think others should too, but as it is, it can't happen. Originality is forsaken for the lowest common denominator of appeal.

The current system if the antithesis of true democracy, discouraging the majority of voters, stifling dissent, limiting choices. This isn't freedom, it's illusion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is no intent to limit contributions, as with McCain-Feingold, but rather to make it apparent who's saying what, and who's paying for it.

Can you reconcile your statement that there is no limit on contributions with-

OpenCongress Summary

This is the Democrats' response to the Supreme Courts' recent Citizens United v. FEC ruling. It seeks to increase transparency of corporate and special-interest money in national political campaigns. It would require organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identity of the large donors, and to reveal their identities in any political ads they fund. It would also bar foreign corporations, government contractors and TARP recipients from making political expenditures. Notably, the bill would exempt all long-standing, non-profit organizations with more than 500,000 members from having to disclose their donor lists.

 

[Jhhnn]

He (like some others) is correct in that money plays the major part in elections. He's also correct that the Republicans aren't going to want to cut of donations to their party. What he misses are the exceptions which apparently exclude unions and groups favorable to Democrats.

Republicans would be nuts to cut off their financial testicles, but agree to let the Dems have no limitations or disclosure. I don't know if he simply didn't know that or if he approves.


My suggestion of a Constitutional change isn't made likely. The SCOTUS isn't likely to rule in favor of restrictions, especially if one party benefits. Money still determines who wins with few exceptions.

As strange as it may sound my problem with the current system is that your group, the Progressives and others have no voice. You are in truth powerless, hoping that someone will at least consider your POV in government. You hope for crumbs from the table, because you are outside the mainstream. You have about as much chance of having your way as the Religious Right with abortion. Sure the Reps said a lot, but what actually happened? Nothing.

Instead I'd like a system where you and others have a chance, a real chance to be heard and your ideas, not Democratic political considerations. Wouldn't you like your plans for health care to have a fair hearing and a chance to convince that they are worth voting for?

For all the differences between you and I, I think you should have a shot at it. I think others should too, but as it is, it can't happen. Originality is forsaken for the lowest common denominator of appeal.

The current system if the antithesis of true democracy, discouraging the majority of voters, stifling dissent, limiting choices. This isn't freedom, it's illusion.

Mighty broad assumptions there. So, uhh, you don't think that the AARP and the NRA will offset the Unions? Are all such groups favorable to Dems, or even a majority of them? Hardly. Is their usual modus operandi to hide their participation, to create a string of entities to conceal that, or do they represent themselves as who they are?

When all the third party concealed interest advertising of this election season comes to an end, what we'll find, as usual, is that big money donors will effectively hide behind the usual front men, probably more effectively than ever before. I suspect that we'll find substantial advertising done by specially created entities whose money is totally and completely untraceable. They pop up like stinkhorns and melt just as quickly, leaving only the stink behind.

Is that what you're defending?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Mighty broad assumptions there. So, uhh, you don't think that the AARP and the NRA will offset the Unions? Are all such groups favorable to Dems, or even a majority of them? Hardly. Is their usual modus operandi to hide their participation, to create a string of entities to conceal that, or do they represent themselves as who they are?

When all the third party concealed interest advertising of this election season comes to an end, what we'll find, as usual, is that big money donors will effectively hide behind the usual front men, probably more effectively than ever before. I suspect that we'll find substantial advertising done by specially created entities whose money is totally and completely untraceable. They pop up like stinkhorns and melt just as quickly, leaving only the stink behind.

Is that what you're defending?

I'm saying that a better bill is needed. I want full disclosure of all donations. They ought to be public record.

I also want you to be honest when representing the bill. You said that it doesn't limit contributions and it does. The means that when it came before the SCOTUS they would rule against it on the same basis, thereby gutting the Act.

Do you have a good reason that full disclosure by all parties should not be made? That's what I'm arguing for.