dayman Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/senate-bill-would-require-nonprofits-to-reveal-donors.html
Rob's House Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/senate-bill-would-require-nonprofits-to-reveal-donors.html Forcing people to publicly disclose political contributions isn't too far removed from doing away with the secret ballot.
B-Man Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 DISCLOSE Is a SHAM:A proposed campaign-finance law attempts to scare and regulate opponents into silence. By Bradley A. Smith It’s an election year, and incumbents are nervous. And so, in a classic sign of political weakness, Senate Democrats have scheduled a vote on legislation that would manipulate campaign-finance laws to silence their opponents. Their weapon is the “DISCLOSE Act,” a gimmicky acronym for “Democracy Is Served by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.” Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass various versions of the bill since the winter of 2010, when Republican Scott Brown’s stunning victory in the special election to succeed the late Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts revealed the unpopularity of Obamacare and the Democratic agenda. Despite claims that the bill would merely inform the public about campaign spending, DISCLOSE originally would have prohibited large amounts of speech, and not just about candidates. Senate Democrats failed to break a Republican filibuster on this first version by one vote in 2010, and their majority has shrunk since then. But they haven’t given up, and while they haven’t passed a budget in over three years, they have scheduled a cloture vote (i.e., the vote needed to break a filibuster) on a new version of DISCLOSE for Monday. In an implicit admission of the true scope of the original DISCLOSE bill, we are assured that the new bill has been stripped of all the 2010 bill’s provisions that had nothing to do with disclosure. If the bill has been stripped of its non-disclosure provisions, why should anyone be opposed to it? First, because DISCLOSE attempts to scare and regulate people into remaining silent. Second, because this is clearly being done for partisan purposes. And third, because we already have more campaign-finance disclosure than ever before, and more disclosure is simply unnecessary. First, silence. As Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said when introducing the original bill in 2010, “the deterrent effect [of DISCLOSE] should not be underestimated.” The bill’s real aim is to force trade associations and nonprofits to publicly name their donors. Such lists might be used by competing groups to poach members, or, more ominously, by government officials to threaten or retaliate against political opponents, or by interest groups to gin up boycotts and threats against the individual and corporate members of the groups. Bradley A. Smith .
/dev/null Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 The bill’s real aim is to force trade associations and nonprofits to publicly name their donors. Such lists might be used by competing groups to poach members, or, more ominously, by government officials to threaten or retaliate against political opponents, or by interest groups to gin up boycotts and threats against the individual and corporate members of the groups. Bradley A. Smith . http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/obama-campaign-flags-less-than-reputable-romney-donors/ A different kind of politician Hope & Change Forward
The Big Cat Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Forcing people to publicly disclose political contributions isn't too far removed from doing away with the secret ballot. Surely you aren't equating private funds with the voting process...
dayman Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Forcing people to publicly disclose political contributions isn't too far removed from doing away with the secret ballot. It's far enough away. Superpacs put all kinds of stuff on the air, most of which is trash. Disclose who pays for it. It shouldn't be a party line issue. If you vote GOP you don't have to be against this. It shouldn't be a party line issue. If you give tons of money, then give it in a way that makes sure it will be spent so you aren't embarrassed for people to know it is you. You think the issue is really supporting Mitt Romney or Obama? Of course not. The issue is the trash ads that comes out from either side. B-Man is retarded by the way as always. Any issue in the history off PPP he seems to just google "find me the most conservative take on this to convince me it's bad." And then you run here and post the most ridiculous articles ever written. It's not scaring ExxonMObile or Sheldon Adelson. That's retarded. It's fair to know who is primarily funding the massive tv campaigns that are supposedly "on their own" and no associated with the actual campaigns. And it shouldn't even be a party issue for people to know who is shoveling **** at them. Wake up B-Man quite being, as DC Tom would aptly describe you, "an idiot." The bottom line, if you are a large donor to superPac TV ads put your name on it. Take some accountability for the messages you barrage the American people with. It's that simple. There's nothing more to it. It's something everyone should support, not something Democrats should see as a tool and Republicans a threat. Edited July 17, 2012 by TheNewBills
jjamie12 Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 It's far enough away. Superpacs put all kinds of stuff on the air, most of which is trash. Disclose who pays for it. It shouldn't be a party line issue. If you vote GOP you don't have to be against this. It shouldn't be a party line issue. If you give tons of money, then give it in a way that makes sure it will be spent so you aren't embarrassed for people to know it is you. You think the issue is really supporting Mitt Romney or Obama? Of course not. The issue is the trash ads that comes out from either side. B-Man is retarded by the way as always. Any issue in the history off PPP he seems to just google "find me the most conservative take on this to convince me it's bad." And then you run here and post the most ridiculous articles ever written. It's not scaring ExxonMObile or Sheldon Adelson. That's retarded. It's fair to know who is primarily funding the massive tv campaigns that are supposedly "on their own" and no associated with the actual campaigns. And it shouldn't even be a party issue for people to know who is shoveling **** at them. Wake up B-Man quite being, as DC Tom would aptly describe you, "an idiot." The bottom line, if you are a large donor to superPac TV ads put your name on it. Take some accountability for the messages you barrage the American people with. It's that simple. There's nothing more to it. It's something everyone should support, not something Democrats should see as a tool and Republicans a threat. Why do we have to have a Congressional response to everything? What 'problem' does this bill fix?
Doc Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Why do we have to have a Congressional response to everything? What 'problem' does this bill fix? No problem at all. Unlike voter ID laws.
/dev/null Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Why do we have to have a Congressional response to everything? We don't. Obama can just issue a Papal Bull So let it be written So let it be done
B-Man Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 B-Man is retarded by the way as always. I'm sorry that you feel so. It seems that if you start a thread lamenting a party line vote on a (campaign year) bill, that perhaps you would like an informed article describing how the bill came about and how it is not well-written. Here is the author's bio, by the way. He certainly doesn't know as much about the subject as you and I Bradley A. Smith is a professor of law at Capital University, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission No. You apparently just want posters to respond with....."yeah, both sides suck" No problem. .
dayman Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Why do we have to have a Congressional response to everything? What 'problem' does this bill fix? It helps to strengthen disclosure requirements. Give more than 10K? Report within 24 hours, it's on the internet within 48. The general idea is that people should be able to find out, contemporaneously with their being hit with advertising, and BEFORE the election is over btw (free from evasion and stalling that happens now) who is saying what they're saying...so they can consider it as they will in context. The idea it chills speech? It's ridiculous. If you won't say something b/c your name might be linked with it, maybe it's a good idea you think twice. If you want to enter the realm of public discussion regarding our elections by giving over 10K (really IMO I wouldn't mind dropping it lower...bring on in the unions and NRA...if that's the GOP concern they should lobby for MORE sunlight) then enter the realm of PUBLIC discussion. It's not that hard. Citizens United majority decision talked about prompt disclosure being the remedy for the potential ills the dissent was concerned about. Nothing in the first amendment gives you a right to secret speech or protects you from potential legal consequences of your speech. If you want to take a stand but ONLY if nobody knows it is you, or if you want to push a message but feel it isn't effective unless people don't know it is you, well...go !@#$ yourself. All types of GOP Senators and House Members and perhaps some pundits will talk about how more sunlight in a more timely manner is somehow bad. It will restrict speech. It is purely political. It's garbage. Disclosure is a good thing. I fail to see how anyone can ultimately deny that with a straight face without resorting to nonsense political arguments. Edited July 17, 2012 by TheNewBills
jjamie12 Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) It helps to strengthen disclosure requirements. ... We already have laws that deal with this. Do you *really* think that making new laws will stop the so-called 'stalling problem'? If you want to know who is donating to campaigns, I'm sure you can find out who is. Edit:In fact, I just looked on fec.gov and check it out! I just found out that Parker Barnum, an analyst at Barclay's Bank gave President Obama two contributions of $500. Once on 3/26 and again on 4/16. This information is super-illuminating. It TOTALLY changes my mind. Edit 2: I KNEW IT! Robert Scull of New York City (zipcode 10011) has donated (get this...) 11 TIMES to President Obama between 9/8/11 and 5/21/12. Mr. Scull works for Nickelodeon as a 'TV Producer'. This new information clearly and obviously changes my mind about all of those SpongeBob re-runs. That subversive little sponge and his liberal hypocrisy! In addition, 2010 will be the last time I take advice on who to vote for from iCarly. Edit 3: This is actually kind of fun to look through this list. Mariska Hargitay (Law & Order SVU), Cynthia Nixon (Sex and the City) and Bete Midler all gave the Obama campaign the max of $5,000. Edited July 17, 2012 by jjamie12
DC Tom Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 I'm not sure what I think about this. Guess my opinion is still "evolving".
dayman Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) We already have laws that deal with this. Do you *really* think that making new laws will stop the so-called 'stalling problem'? If you want to know who is donating to campaigns, I'm sure you can find out who is. Edit:In fact, I just looked on fec.gov and check it out! I just found out that Parker Barnum, an analyst at Barclay's Bank gave President Obama two contributions of $500. Once on 3/26 and again on 4/16. This information is super-illuminating. It TOTALLY changes my mind. Edit 2: I KNEW IT! Robert Scull of New York City (zipcode 10011) has donated (get this...) 11 TIMES to President Obama between 9/8/11 and 5/21/12. Mr. Scull works for Nickelodeon as a 'TV Producer'. This new information clearly and obviously changes my mind about all of those SpongeBob re-runs. That subversive little sponge and his liberal hypocrisy! In addition, 2010 will be the last time I take advice on who to vote for from iCarly. Edit 3: This is actually kind of fun to look through this list. Mariska Hargitay (Law & Order SVU), Cynthia Nixon (Sex and the City) and Bete Midler all gave the Obama campaign the max of $5,000. The campaigns themselves are fine. Law requiring disclosure superPac information more quickly is something you are against why exactly? You don't want to know stuff quickly and are emotional in defending your right to be kept stupid? Edited July 17, 2012 by TheNewBills
Doc Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 The campaigns themselves are fine. Law requiring disclosure superPac information more quickly is something you are against why exactly? You don't want to know stuff quickly and are emotional in defending your right to be kept stupid? I'd rather know how my tax dollars are being spent by those on welfare. Campaign contributions don't affect me in the least.
dayman Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) I'm not sure what I think about this. Guess my opinion is still "evolving". Why though? You don't want to know more about American Crossroads (who pelt my state with ad after ad) or any of the other organizations (including Democratic PACS who really have raised less money but been more effective as of late anyway) that avoid disclosure requirements b/c they are "social welfare" groups. Why would you not want to be able to know if you chose to. I mean we all know it's Rove's PAC, but wouldn't you prefer to be able to easily find up to date info on who exactly is funding the ads you see every other commercial break who are trying so hard to convince you and your neighbors to vote a certain way? There just ins't any reason for the common AMerican to oppose this. Edited July 17, 2012 by TheNewBills
3rdnlng Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Why though? You don't want to know more about American Crossroads (who pelt my state with ad after ad) or any of the other organizations (including Democratic PACS who really have raised less money but been more effective as of late anyway) that avoid disclosure requirements b/c they are "social welfare" groups. Why would you not want to be able to know if you chose to. I mean we all know it's Rove's PAC, but wouldn't you prefer to be able to easily find up to date info on who exactly is funding the ads you see every other commercial break who are trying so hard to convince you and your neighbors to vote a certain way? There just ins't any reason for the common AMerican to oppose this. I found your argument unconvincing until I started hearing that stupid despicable commercial put out by Obama's campaign that features Romney singing "America The Beautiful". The people that created, paid and approved that commercial should be dealt with in very painful ways. I don't want to wait two months to do it either.
DC Tom Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Why though? You don't want to know more about American Crossroads (who pelt my state with ad after ad) or any of the other organizations (including Democratic PACS who really have raised less money but been more effective as of late anyway) that avoid disclosure requirements b/c they are "social welfare" groups. Why would you not want to be able to know if you chose to. I mean we all know it's Rove's PAC, but wouldn't you prefer to be able to easily find up to date info on who exactly is funding the ads you see every other commercial break who are trying so hard to convince you and your neighbors to vote a certain way? There just ins't any reason for the common AMerican to oppose this. I see both sides of the argument. Yours, and I understand (and appreciate) being able to support a candidate anonymously without fear of acrimony. Every time I start to agree with your position, I think about the potential for abuse if donor rolls were public information and, say, I couldn't get a job in my sector once Romney was elected because it was public knowledge I donated to Obama's campaign. (And it would - and does - happen. I recall there was a big stink about such in the MD state government maybe six years ago). Unless you want to argue that it should only apply to donations above a certain level...which is discriminatory (which I'm sure, if not yourself, then someone else will justify with "But they're rich.")
dayman Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 I see both sides of the argument. Yours, and I understand (and appreciate) being able to support a candidate anonymously without fear of acrimony. Every time I start to agree with your position, I think about the potential for abuse if donor rolls were public information and, say, I couldn't get a job in my sector once Romney was elected because it was public knowledge I donated to Obama's campaign. (And it would - and does - happen. I recall there was a big stink about such in the MD state government maybe six years ago). Unless you want to argue that it should only apply to donations above a certain level...which is discriminatory (which I'm sure, if not yourself, then someone else will justify with "But they're rich.") First off it is 10K in the Bill now. I wouldn't be opposed to lowering it but that's just me. As is are you going to give 10K all by yourself? Is the fear of possible retaliation in certain private markets against some people something that outweighs the need for timely disclosure so that all the people of America can (if they choose to) find out who it is that are whispering in their ear to vote this way or that? I can see a potential concern that you are raising. But it's no where near enough, for my taste, to justify people not supporting more timely disclosure and disclosure of these "spookyPACS" that are no more social welfare groups than the Nazis were. They're PACS plain and simple. If you are afraid of a 3rd party retaliating against you (obviously in a way that is lawful, in some situation you may have legal recourse but in many like the one you are posing probably not) as a result..you are going to have to be a big boy and make the call. If you give over 10K, you can't be hidden. So decide. The exact number, people can differ as to what is appropriate but the overall point IMO is that all Americans should support more disclosure. This is something many GOP members in the Senate (including Mr. McCain) LONG supported...until last night. If you want to speak, you can speak per Citizens United. If the people want to know who you are when you enter the public discussion, they should be able to know and know while you are speaking. It's really that simple.
Rob's House Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 You gotta weigh the pros & cons. I know we like to think the days of Woodrow Wilson & FDR, when govt. goons could shake down political trouble makers, are over, but to me it seems the potential for abuse outweighs our interest in getting the names behind the info. If the info's bunk, discredit it.
Recommended Posts