Disclose Act Dies In Senate

If the democrats were smart, they'd bring this up over and over and over again during the elections. It makes winning easier when you point out your opponent more or less telling people that they don't deserve to know who is giving them money.

I agree with Shadow_Dragon.

Also, the GOP's hypocrisy is getting a little too thick, even for them.

FFS...Why, why, why do we need 60 votes? It's so stupid. If they threaten to filibuster, then by god make them get their old asses up to the podium and stand for hours on end filibustering. Then play the clip of the idiot filibustering in every campaign spot from here to the election.

When people are worried about jobs, the economy, and corruption it would probably help get some of these bozos out of Congress if their constituents had to see them reading out of the phone book (or whatever the filibuster strategy is) rather than working on putting people back to work.

Opty said:

FFS...Why, why, why do we need 60 votes? It's so stupid. If they threaten to filibuster, then by god make them get their old asses up to the podium and stand for hours on end filibustering. Then play the clip of the idiot filibustering in every campaign spot from here to the election.

Click to expand...

That would require the Dems to grow a set of balls. Not likely to happen in our lifetime, unfortunately.

Opty said:

FFS...Why, why, why do we need 60 votes? It's so stupid. If they threaten to filibuster, then by god make them get their old asses up to the podium and stand for hours on end filibustering. Then play the clip of the idiot filibustering in every campaign spot from here to the election.

When people are worried about jobs, the economy, and corruption it would probably help get some of these bozos out of Congress if their constituents had to see them reading out of the phone book (or whatever the filibuster strategy is) rather than working on putting people back to work.

Click to expand...

I agree with Opty.

ACLU Urges No Vote On DISCLOSE ACT

Bill Will Compromise Free Speech
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or [email protected]

WASHINGTON – The Senate today and tomorrow will debate a campaign finance bill that includes disclosure requirements that raise significant civil liberties concerns. The American Civil Liberties Union is urging senators to vote against the bill because those disclosure requirements are overly broad and inconsistent and will likely infringe upon the free speech and privacy rights of Americans.

The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) bill (H.R. 5628) includes a provision obligating many advocacy organizations that wish to speak out on candidates and, in certain situations, political issues, to release the identities of many of their donors, while allowing a few large organizations to preserve the privacy of their donors. The amendment exempts organizations that have over 500,000 members, are over 10 years old, have a presence in all 50 states and whose revenue from corporations and unions is less than 15 percent. By exempting larger organizations that might tend to be more mainstream from certain disclosure requirements, the bill inequitably suppresses only the speech of smaller organizations that might be more controversial, and compromises the anonymity of small donors.

The House passed its version of the DISCLOSE Act in June.

The following can be attributed to Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

“Public discourse and debate is a cornerstone of our democracy and our Constitution ensures the right of individuals to engage in these conversations without being exposed to unnecessary risks of harassment or embarrassment. The only way to bring positive change to our elections is to promote reforms that respect free speech and do not limit it. We urge the Senate to vote down this well-intentioned but overly broad legislation.”

The following can be attributed to Michael Macleod-Ball, ACLU Chief Legislative and Policy Counsel:

"The ACLU supports the disclosure of large contributions to candidates as long as it does not have a chilling effect on political participation, but the DISCLOSE Act would inflict unnecessary damage to free speech rights and does not include the proper safeguards to protect Americans’ privacy. The bill would severely impact donor anonymity, especially those donors who give to smaller and more controversial organizations.”

If you ask me, the more transparency about where money goes and who gets it and who gives it, the better.

In a shiny whiney world, where political parties both actually did what their names described, then both parties should be for this.

Assholes.

I have to agree with Rugcat. I'll also add to it that the vast majority of people aren't going to give a damn about small time donors. Is anyone going to care that Carl down the street donated ten bucks to the GOP/Dem politician? No. The only time people are going to take notice is when it's companies (including the execs of said companies) and controversial figures (like a klan leader, for example).

rugcat said:

On this issue the ACLU is full of crap.

Leaving aside the ruling that says money is equivalent to speech, it not about suppressing the ability to pour in all the money you want. It's about elevating privacy and secrecy over the common good.

Click to expand...

You say it's about the common good.

I say it's about protecting MY rights. These people are spending money to influence politics, which means that they're spending money to influence my life.

Privacy ends when people are using it to, effectively, dick other people around.

That's how I see it, at least. But I don't speak for every other libertarian/anarcho-capitalist/transhuman/whatever out there.