Senate Repubs block donor transparency

[PokerGuy]

and at the end there is a bolded, loud statement that it was funded by Exxon-Mobile, that tends to mute the message or even make it counter-productive.

What would happen is that you'd have all sorts of shell organizations and trusts set up so the statement at the end would be "brought to you by citizens concerned for the safety of America" or crap like that. Nobody would know or care who was behind the adds on all but the most controversial subjects.

 

[Craig234]

What would happen is that you'd have all sorts of shell organizations and trusts set up so the statement at the end would be "brought to you by citizens concerned for the safety of America" or crap like that. Nobody would know or care who was behind the adds on all but the most controversial subjects.

No, that's just what the law prevents.

 

[werepossum]

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?

AARP is very liberal. It will in no way offset the unions, but will supplement them, as demonstrated by last year's AARP seminars intending (and failing badly) to get seniors behind Obamacare. (Remember that the AARP includes for-profit organizations designed to make money off of seniors in addition to being a not-for-profit designed to serve them. Remember also that the AARP was formerly the National Retired Teachers Association; it is now, and has always been, a liberal organization.)

Regardless of balance, it's never good to have one set of rules for some groups and people, and another set of rules for other groups and people.

 

[Craig234]

AARP is very liberal. It will in no way offset the unions, but will supplement them, as demonstrated by last year's AARP seminars intending (and failing badly) to get seniors behind Obamacare. (Remember that the AARP includes for-profit organizations designed to make money off of seniors in addition to being a not-for-profit designed to serve them. Remember also that the AARP was formerly the National Retired Teachers Association; it is now, and has always been, a liberal organization.)

Regardless of balance, it's never good to have one set of rules for some groups and people, and another set of rules for other groups and people.

Stephen Colbert found himself forced to appear in a response to your post, to say 'Facts have a liberal bias.'

 

[PeshakJang]

Stephen Colbert found himself forced to appear in a response to your post, to say 'Facts have a liberal bias.'

Money can buy a lot of facts.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's a history of how the carve-outs to the bill came about, originally created to appease the whiney and very powerful bitches of the NRA-

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38713.html

The NRA is correctly identified as the country's most powerful interest group... other than maybe the Koch Bros, who aren't really an interest group per se...

None of which has anything to do with why repubs opposed the measure- they want to perpetuate the smarmy bullshit of groups like Americans for Job Security, which is merely one of their fronts...