The Disclose Act

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#1
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Monday urged the Senate to approve legislation that would reveal who is behind election campaign advertising, and chided Republicans for opposing a measure he said would protect American democracy.

The Senate is due to vote on Tuesday on a bill that would blunt a Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited campaign spending, against which Obama has been an outspoken critic.

"You'd think that reducing corporate, and even foreign influence over our elections would not be a partisan issue," Obama said in Rose Garden remarks at the White House.

"But of course this is Washington in 2010, and the Republican leadership in the Senate is once again using every tactic and every maneuver they can to prevent the Disclose Act from even coming for an up or down vote," he said.

The bill would force the disclosure of the sources of election advertising spending and ban financing from companies with more than 20 percent foreign ownership.

Republicans say it is designed to protect Democrats worried about their chances in the November 2 congressional elections.

"The Disclose Act seeks to protect unpopular Democrat politicians by silencing their critics," Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said.
The January Supreme Court ruling overturned long-standing campaign finance limits and will allow companies to spend freely in elections. It is expected to unleash a wave of money before the November poll and the 2012 presidential race.

Obama said disclosing who is behind an election ad would serve an important role in policing campaign finance.

"A group can hide behind a name like 'Citizens for a Better Future,' even if the more accurate name ought be 'Companies for Weaker Oversight," he said. "These shadow groups are already forming and building warchests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections."
Source

So what do you think? Overall I'm really, really liking this idea. I've always hated this well known fact that elections are bought and sold these days and at least being able to know who is buying and selling would be awesome. Besides, why should these guys have anything to hide unless their sources of campaign funding would smear their names? I'm not sure I totally agree with the 20% number on foreign ownership (I feel like maybe it should be around 30-40%) but I see where they're going with it in only allowing companies that have a real impact on our economics to have a say.

Once again, I'm not too sure why the republicans are so set on blocking this. The election process in this country has been a joke for decades now and I think this is a good step towards fixing parts of it.


Thoughts?
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#2
"The Disclose Act seeks to protect unpopular Democrat politicians by silencing their critics," Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said.
I don't see how. Let's be open about who is contributing to whom.

"A group can hide behind a name like 'Citizens for a Better Future,' even if the more accurate name ought be 'Companies for Weaker Oversight," he said. "These shadow groups are already forming and building warchests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections."
Yeah, let's not show any bias and ignore other groups that are doing the same thing, Mr. President:shifteyes:

It's a good idea so long as it's across the board to EVERYBODY, Mr. President, be presidential and outline your reasons why you support it objectively. It's already a good bill, don't make it more political than it already is.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#3
I've never heard of this, but agree that disclosure is the answer. Let people and groups contribute however much that want to whoever they want with the caveat that every dollar will be tracked on a public website. In today's world, that seems easy enough.

If somebody wants to take a million dollars from George Soros or the KKK, let them do it and let his opponent destroy him for it. The trick though is, if you don't disclose it immediately after getting it, you go to jail. There also needs to be a fire bumper, so people can't donate 20 days or so before.
------
I just did a quick search for this and found this:
Would exempt organizations that have more than a million members, have been in existence for more than ten years, have members in all 50 states, and raise 15% or less of their funds from corporations.
That's weird?? There's a new law that basically exempts unions, but applies to pretty much every tea-party organization.

Still don't know anything about it, but that provision is really suspect.
 
Last edited:
Top