Senate Repubs block donor transparency

[Jhhnn]

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.

So, uhh, instead of near universal disclosure we're better off with no disclosure, which is what repubs are creating?

Membership in the Unions, the AARP, the NRA and similar groups is fairly obvious, and they fall all across the political spectrum. They have no hidden agendas. They're up front. And forcing the AARP, for example, to publish their member lists would allow third parties to use them for whatever purposes they see fit, so these organizations would either have to negatively modify their privacy agreements or stay out of politics entirely.

Your claim that the proposed measure limits contributions except wrt foreign interests is mere assertion at this point. You've offered nothing to back it up.

Edit- the bill does restrict contributions from foreign controlled corps, govt contractors and TARP recipients who still owe money- other than that, there are no restrictions. Those issues were never addressed in the citizens united case.

http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=324343

 

[Double Trouble]

If the bill had included everyone instead of creating a loophole for the liberal groups I would have been more in favor. Allowing a fatally flawed legislation is worse than maintaining status quo until a good bill can be written. As Hayabusa pointed out, the bill's limiting of contributions would have been smacked by the court anyway.

Another example of gridlock being good. Come up with a good bill, and it can pass. Partisan drivel will not pass because the "other side", whatever side that happens to be, will block it. Sounds good to me.

 

[Jhhnn]

If the bill had included everyone instead of creating a loophole for the liberal groups I would have been more in favor. Allowing a fatally flawed legislation is worse than maintaining status quo until a good bill can be written. As Hayabusa pointed out, the bill's limiting of contributions would have been smacked by the court anyway.

Another example of gridlock being good. Come up with a good bill, and it can pass. Partisan drivel will not pass because the "other side", whatever side that happens to be, will block it. Sounds good to me.

Willful blindness, I see. So tell me, how is the NRA or the AARP a "Liberal Group", anyway? They're exempt as well, something I pointed out earlier...

Watch how this works out this election. We'll probably have attack ads whose ultimate source of funding turns out to be a Panamanian bearer corporation...

 

[drebo]

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.

Then elect people who are not succeptible to bribes. If the current crop has shown that they are not, vote for someone else.

It's quite simple.

This is a problem that cannot be legislated away. There will always be backroom deals and cronyism if you let the politicians get away with it, whether it's against the rules or not. If your politicians engage in this sort of behavior, vote them out of office. Show them that it's not acceptable, and one of two things will happen: you'll get an honest politician or you'll get politicians with such short lives as to not be in a position for lobbying.

If you don't like the way politicians are acting, VOTE THEM OUT! It's your decision.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Willful blindness, I see. So tell me, how is the NRA or the AARP a "Liberal Group", anyway? They're exempt as well, something I pointed out earlier...

Watch how this works out this election. We'll probably have attack ads whose ultimate source of funding turns out to be a Panamanian bearer corporation...

From what I can determine unions would be exempt from reporting and they give a lot more than the NRA. That's still not the point. The standard ought to be that if there is money involved then there should be transparency. If it's a union, a corporation or a billionaire it seems reasonable to make it known to the public. Perhaps I'm mistaken but you seem to be arguing against what you are arguing for so I'll ask an unambiguous yes or no question.

Do you or do you not support full disclosure?

 

[Jhhnn]

Then elect people who are not succeptible to bribes. If the current crop has shown that they are not, vote for someone else.

It's quite simple.

This is a problem that cannot be legislated away. There will always be backroom deals and cronyism if you let the politicians get away with it, whether it's against the rules or not. If your politicians engage in this sort of behavior, vote them out of office. Show them that it's not acceptable, and one of two things will happen: you'll get an honest politician or you'll get politicians with such short lives as to not be in a position for lobbying.

If you don't like the way politicians are acting, VOTE THEM OUT! It's your decision.

Pure diversion and obfuscation, drebo. It's not about that, but about anonymous donors attempting to influence elections so they can make their anonymous after the fact deals with the politicians of their choice. If they can't anonymously influence the elections, make it look like it's some honest group of citizens, then their opportunities to make such deals are diminished.

 

[drebo]

Pure diversion and obfuscation, drebo. It's not about that, but about anonymous donors attempting to influence elections so they can make their anonymous after the fact deals with the politicians of their choice. If they can't anonymously influence the elections, make it look like it's some honest group of citizens, then their opportunities to make such deals are diminished.

No, they're not. They'll just set up more PACs and what not to circumvent conventional (i.e. written) rules. They'll make more backroom deals. It's like college recruiting...you're not supposed to buy the kids cars, but schools do it anyway. USC finally got taken to task for it, and I think it's high time the US government did, too.

That said, they probably won't even worry about it. 95% of voters don't care. They look at who had the most ads on TV, whose name they heard the most on the radio, and which name is next to the (D) or (R) on the ballot. They don't generally care about who funded the ad or who paid for it. If John Q. Public lives in San Francisco and his life hasn't changed drastically in the last two years, he's not likely to vote against Pelosi...even though she is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the US legislative branch. A blurb of size 6.5 font at the end of the ads for her on the television that state that her husband's company paid for the ad isn't likely going to influence their votes, because they don't generally know that his company stands to make a fucking fortune if she gets her way with cap and trade. The subset of American voters that actually researches this stuff and cares is so small as to not really make much difference. Most voting Americans don't think they can change, so they believe that voting for the guy whose been doing it forever can't really make things worse. Apathy is our worst enemy here, not the misinformation of who may have paid for a political advertisment.

The best solution is to remove those people who engage in shady dealings from office. It's the only way to teach them that it's not OK, whether there's legislation that says so or not. Unfortunately, it's very unlikely to happen.

 

[trenchfoot]

Secrecy is the in-bred modus operandi of the repubs. The Bush admin was the most secretive admin of them all. Why? well, common sense dictates that the more secretive you are, the more dirty deeds you have to hide from the people. The Bush admin is a plain example of the apparatus they represent, of which the repub party is owned and operated by. Their agenda and ideology mainly benefits the select few. That they have to constantly hide this agenda through outright lies, obfuscation, disinformation and propagandizing "fear of the boogymen" as a distraction goes hand-in-hand with being as secretive as possible.

Obviously, they're doing one heck of a job at it, seeing as if they've got the Supreme Court in their back pocket for a long while.

 

[drebo]

Secrecy is the in-bred modus operandi of the repubs. The Bush admin was the most secretive admin of them all. Why? well, common sense dictates that the more secretive you are, the more dirty deeds you have to hide from the people. The Bush admin is a plain example of the apparatus they represent, of which the repub party is owned and operated by. Their agenda and ideology mainly benefits the select few. That they have to constantly hide this agenda through outright lies, obfuscation, disinformation and propagandizing "fear of the boogymen" as a distraction goes hand-in-hand with being as secretive as possible.

Obviously, they're doing one heck of a job at it, seeing as if they've got the Supreme Court in their back pocket for a long while.

Mmmhmmm. Because Democrats have never been secrative. Ever. Maybe it's a trait of big government liberals (which exist on both sides of the D-R line).

 

[Craig234]

Mmmhmmm. Because Democrats have never been secrative. Ever. Maybe it's a trait of big government liberals (which exist on both sides of the D-R line).

Yes, who passed the best government accountability, freedom of information act in the country's history - titled 'The Freedom of Information Act"? Progressives under LBJ.

And who gutted freedom of information ordering for agencies to slash their cooperation with the requests under the Act? Republicans under George Bush.

Who is for government secrecy? What idiocy above.

 

[trenchfoot]

Mmmhmmm. Because Democrats have never been secrative. Ever. Maybe it's a trait of big government liberals (which exist on both sides of the D-R line).

Sure, the Dems have also been secretive at times for whatever their reasons were, but the repubs have been secretive to the detriment of the Nation, and unlike the Dems, all for the benefit of consolidating power and the riches it brings to the very rich and the very few. Bush's two terms in office made that quite plain and very clear to all except those that choose to be shining examples of the Three Wise Monkeys repub ver. 2000.2008.

 

[Double Trouble]

Sure, the Dems have also been secretive at times for whatever their reasons were, but the repubs have been secretive to the detriment of the Nation, and unlike the Dems, all for the benefit of consolidating power and the riches it brings to the very rich and the very few. Bush's two terms in office made that quite plain and very clear to all except those that choose to be shining examples of the Three Wise Monkeys repub ver. 2000.2008.

Quit smoking crack, it's bad for you.

The trend towards less transparency in government is not new, and the Bush administration has a terrible record on that front..... unfortunately so does the current one. They might talk a big deal about transparency, but when push comes to shove (or when you're trying to pass a monstrous health care disaster nobody wants), guess which administration conveniently forgot promises of televised hearings and meetings etc? Yeah. In other words, it doesn't matter which party it is, when they get into power they want to keep their dirty politics behind closed doors and as secret as possible.

 

[Linflas]

Damn righties over at the ACLU are against the Disclose Act.

1. The DISCLOSE Act fails to preserve the anonymity of small donors, thereby
especially chilling the expression rights of those who support controversial causes.

Link to ACLU letter PDF

 

[Jhhnn]

From what I can determine unions would be exempt from reporting and they give a lot more than the NRA. That's still not the point. The standard ought to be that if there is money involved then there should be transparency. If it's a union, a corporation or a billionaire it seems reasonable to make it known to the public. Perhaps I'm mistaken but you seem to be arguing against what you are arguing for so I'll ask an unambiguous yes or no question.

Do you or do you not support full disclosure?

Have I quit beating my wife? Or have you?

What you offer is merely after the fact diversion from the real reasons repubs voted it down. I think the NYT piece linked earlier shows their real reasons. And, uhh, it's not like senate republican rhetoric matches yours in any way.

You still haven't offered any substantiation that the measure would limit contributions other than the ones I mentioned, so I take it you're ready to admit the charge was erroneous...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Have I quit beating my wife? Or have you?

What you offer is merely after the fact diversion from the real reasons repubs voted it down. I think the NYT piece linked earlier shows their real reasons. And, uhh, it's not like senate republican rhetoric matches yours in any way.

You still haven't offered any substantiation that the measure would limit contributions other than the ones I mentioned, so I take it you're ready to admit the charge was erroneous...

You first said that this wouldn't block contributions, then amended it to what the bill said after I informed you. A prior post of mine pointed it out. First you say this is about disclosure not limiting contributions, I point out your mistake and now you ask me to say I made a false statement? Hardly.

I also said that the Reps wouldn't vote for a bill which hurts them more than the Dems (unless you are saying unions divide their money equally between parties). Limiting contributions and calling for disclosure for those which largely support Republicans does just that. It isn't a matter of liking the agenda or the party. I don't care if you think ice is unfair because it's cold, and neither do the facts.

I then mention the fact that the SCOTUS would probably strike it down because it limits contributions in a specific way. Note probably, since we can't know, however you ought to know it's likely.

That means that the best way to get "disclosure' is to make a bill about disclosure. Imagine that. Well, not with this bill. It has exceptions and those would keep hidden the inner workings of how some funds are raised. Oh, those happen to largely favor the Democrats.

Then I ask you if you support full disclosure or not and you obfuscate. If you were in a court of law and were asked if you did or did not go to a certain place at a certain time and answered with the "beating the wife" thing, you'd first be laughed at, then cited for contempt if you weren't forthcoming. I did not put you in a situation which has two negative implications.

So again, I'll ask. Do you support full disclosure or not? I do, for both Democrats and Republicans. Do you? From your evasive answers it appears you don't, however you have the chance to correct my erroneous assumption.

 

[woolfe9999]

It's highly doubtful that this bill would be deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. IIRC, the majority opinion in the Citizens United case said that a disclosure law would NOT be unconstitutional. As to the selective contribution limits: foreign corporations, government contractors, and large non-profits, contribution limits were not held unconstitutional in Citizens United. That ruling had to do with corporations being able to spend money directly to influence elections, e.g. directly buying add space or distributing literature. And it wasn't about the money per se; it was about the actual content of what they were projecting. There are numerous laws on the federal and state levels which limit contributions and these have not been held unconstitutional.

- wolf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's highly doubtful that this bill would be deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. IIRC, the majority opinion in the Citizens United case said that a disclosure law would NOT be unconstitutional. As to the selective contribution limits: foreign corporations, government contractors, and large non-profits, contribution limits were not held unconstitutional in Citizens United. That ruling had to do with corporations being able to spend money directly to influence elections, e.g. directly buying add space or distributing literature. And it wasn't about the money per se; it was about the actual content of what they were projecting. There are numerous laws on the federal and state levels which limit contributions and these have not been held unconstitutional.

- wolf

You know more about the legal aspects of it so I'll accept your conclusion. Notwithstanding, the bill generally favors the Democrats over the Republicans and since it hurts the latter it's a poison pill. Perhaps all is fair in war and politics, but it's the "Disclosure Act". I think we need one, and I mean one that discloses, not selects out particular donors or organizations. This ain't it.

It's also the hypocrisy of the situation which bothers me as expressed by the apparent attitude of "accountability for them, we don't want it".

 

[piasabird]

Sounds like the bill is full of exemptions and Social Engineering. This is like all bills the Democrats have passed. They are all written by socialists.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why don't Democrats just LET Republicans fillibuster, instead of artificially imposing the 60 vote requirement on themselves??

 

[GuitarDaddy]

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.

Tough shit! Any group that is supporting a political agenda with cash should stand behind that agenda publicly! If they are afraid of backlash, stay the hell out of politics.

 

[Craig234]

Why don't Democrats just LET Republicans fillibuster, instead of artificially imposing the 60 vote requirement on themselves??

Hear hear.

 

[Craig234]

Sounds like the bill is full of exemptions and Social Engineering. This is like all bills the Democrats have passed. They are all written by socialists.

Your post is full of ignorant right-wing buzzwords. This is like all posts you have written. They are all written by a right-wing cult member.

 

[Craig234]

I haven't re-read the thread today, but what'd be wrong with disclosure applying to non-persons (such as corporations and other legal entities), and not to people?

I like being able to see who contributed to things like the Prop 8 campaign, but there are privacy concerns that can be debated, for individuals.

But "Citizens for apple pie and prosperity" funded 99.9% by Exxon-Mobile secretly is another matter.

 

[woolfe9999]

You know more about the legal aspects of it so I'll accept your conclusion. Notwithstanding, the bill generally favors the Democrats over the Republicans and since it hurts the latter it's a poison pill. Perhaps all is fair in war and politics, but it's the "Disclosure Act". I think we need one, and I mean one that discloses, not selects out particular donors or organizations. This ain't it.

It's also the hypocrisy of the situation which bothers me as expressed by the apparent attitude of "accountability for them, we don't want it".

What I favor is ending all entity contributions to campaigns and politicians, and that includes favors of any sort. That means all corporations, foreign and domestic, business partnerships, LLC's, non-profits (unions, churches). Only individual contributions with a 3 figure cap. This can be done without amending the Constitution so far as I know.

If you wanted to prohibit direct money spent, i.e. where the entity actually buys a TV commercial itself, then you'd have to amend the Constitution to get around Citizens United. We should be able to require full disclosure, however, without having to amend it, and I think in that area disclosure is pretty good protection for the public. For example, if you see an ad on TV that questions global warming, 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.

I do like the fact that the bill would have put contribution limits on foreign corporations, government contractors and TARP recipients. There is just too much potential for corruption there. Short of precluding all entity contributions, this is a good start.

However, I agree that the dems poisoned this pill be exempting the unions from disclosure requirements. They should take the union exception out and try again.

- wolf

 

[PokerGuy]

Why don't Democrats just LET Republicans fillibuster, instead of artificially imposing the 60 vote requirement on themselves??

IIRC the rules had been changed that the party didn't need to 'actually' filibuster anymore, they just need to state the intent to do so. The other party then has to have 60 votes to be able to pass the procedural filibuster.