Rocky road ahead for campaign finance

Spencer Collins · #1 (**permalink**) 07-18-2010, 12:01 AM

Quote:

A sweeping overhaul of the campaign finance system seems destined to stall in the Senate – adding to tensions with House Democrats who have grown tired of taking politically risky votes only to see their proposals die on the Senate steps.

The DISCLOSE Act, crafted in response to a landmark Supreme Court case lifting corporate campaign contribution restrictions, could end up in the pile of dozens of bills — including a cap and trade proposal, domestic funding bills and a tax extenders package – that ended up in purgatory after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) forced vulnerable members to take politically risky votes.

“Another bill, another fight with the Senate,” said one exasperated House Democratic aide. “Most of the frustration is directed at Senate Republicans who have absolutely no desire to work to get anything done, so hunting for one or two Senate GOP votes is a painful fact of legislative life.”

What’s particularly galling to House Democrats is that the party is unified on the subject of campaign finance legislation, yet the Senate can’t seem to line up the votes. But the House bill now has exemptions for the National Rifle Association, labor unions and potentially other large special interest organizations, creating a major problem in the Senate.

Still, Majority Leader Harry Reid has made multiple guarantees — both in public and behind closed doors to top House officials — that he will bring the DISCLOSE Act to the floor before the August recess. Yet Reid keeps losing key moderates while he makes these promises.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) threw a major wrench at Reid's voting calculus with a statement slamming the legislation as not "honest" or "genuine." And late in the week, other key Republicans started to bail on Reid.

"I just can't see it happening this summer," Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) told POLITICO, before listing a series of bills left on the Senate docket, including a small business jobs package, the war supplemental spending bill and unemployment benefits.

Snowe, who has joined Democrats on major legislation such as Wall Street reform and temporary unemployment extensions, added that while she has begun to review the campaign finance language, changes would be required before she could support it.

"It's going to take some work,” Snowe said.

The legislation would require corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign. Foreign-controlled corporations and major government contractors would also be barred from paying for such political activities. Republicans – who back the Supreme Court’s decision – contend that the DISCLOSE Act is yet another crack down on free speech that wouldn’t hold up in court.

Even John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was the namesake for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that was partially overturned by the Supreme Court, is a strong opponent of the DISCLOSE Act.

McCain told POLITICO there isn't a single Republican senator who would support the legislation as it stands now, calling the bill "a bailout for the unions." McCain said the issue has been raised in several caucus meetings and he says fixing the campaign finance system is important, but he sees the Democratic version of the DISCLOSE Act as partisan.

Read more: Rocky road ahead for campaign finance - Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com

So...Republicans believe legislation that would (require) corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign. Foreign-controlled corporations and major government contractors would also be barred from paying for such political activities and all of this violates free speech?!?!?!?..

God Help Us All !!!

-0-

alan · #2 (**permalink**) 07-18-2010, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Rocky road ahead for campaign finance

So...Republicans believe legislation that would (require) corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign. Foreign-controlled corporations and major government contractors would also be barred from paying for such political activities and all of this violates free speech?!?!?!?..

God Help Us All !!!

-0-

Or,
Perhaps they believe that free speech (such as that) should have no limitations at all.

Spencer Collins · #3 (**permalink**) 07-18-2010, 12:51 AM

I have no issue with full disclosure but then again,I have nothing to hide.Do corporations and unions have something to hide? Not to worry...with this court,the Disclosure Act if passed,would likely be ruled as unconstitutional.

America is now for sale to the highest bidder and we have no right to know the actual bid because it would violate their right to free speech.

Translation: Corporations don't want their customers to know what candidates and agendas their dollars are supporting! Unions may be a little reluctant to have their membership know how their union dues are spent and what candidates they are supporting. Who gives a dam about the little peoples free speech when they demand to know where their money is going?!?!?

Nothing to worry about here folks...move along...

cnredd · #4 (**permalink**) 07-18-2010, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

So...Republicans believe legislation that would (require) corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign. Foreign-controlled corporations and major government contractors would also be barred from paying for such political activities and all of this violates free speech?!?!?!?..

You're misintrerpreting what is being said...

...which is this...

Quote:

McCain told POLITICO there isn't a single Republican senator who would support the legislation as it stands now, calling the bill "a bailout for the unions." McCain said the issue has been raised in several caucus meetings and he says fixing the campaign finance system is important, but he sees the Democratic version of the DISCLOSE Act as partisan.

What McCain is saying is that Republicans are for campaign finance reform, but not in the manner this crappy bill is written...IF the Democrats wrote a REAL reform bill, then the Republicans would be on board...

...but considering the Dems haven't pushed a real bill in over 3 years, why start now?...

Spencer Collins · #5 (**permalink**) 07-18-2010, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

You're misintrerpreting what is being said...

...which is this...

What McCain is saying is that Republicans are for campaign finance reform, but not in the manner this crappy bill is written...IF the Democrats wrote a REAL reform bill, then the Republicans would be on board...

...but considering the Dems haven't pushed a real bill in over 3 years, why start now?...

No misinterpretation on my part and I know what McCain said. I sincerely believe that Republicans would fight any legislation that would (require)..corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign.

I hope I am proved wrong on this....

-0-

cnredd · #6 (**permalink**) 07-18-2010, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

No misinterpretation on my part and I know what McCain said. I sincerely believe that Republicans would fight any legislation that would (require)..corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign.

I hope I am proved wrong on this....

-0-

You ARE wrong...The Republicans have issues with elements WITHIN the bill that make it unedible...

example...

There's a suggestion that requires a company's CEO to stand before the camera at the end of a commercial and say who he/she is and that they approve of the message...

SOUNDS good...But is it really?...

What if the decision to approve the ads and the CEO disagrees?...Why can't they just have a board member saying the approval and not the CEO?...Why have him/her say something against their will simply because of the law?...

Why does the 1st amendment force "on camera" instead of simply "in audio"?...(Of course, it doesn't...The Dems want this so they know who to target publicly for revenge)...

And what of the CEO himself?...Forcing him/her to publicly make the disclaimer on camera by required law makes him/her subject to be the target of repercussions by the same thugs that recently bombarded the house of bank's lawyer...which is the reason for the whole thing in the first place...

If any CEO feels that this disclaimer might put his/her or their family in jeopardy because of the action of the oposition, than this law ENDORSES INTIMIDATION...

"Show us your face so we can destroy you!" is nothing more than STOPPING people from expressing their opinions and positions...

CEOs fear retribution...they don't create the commercial...intimidators win...

Dems take that section out and they'll probably get some Republican support...

...and they won't...They rather cry "Republicans are evil" instead of the actual "Republicans are trying to block our minions from being evil!"...

Last I checked, someone should be able to talk for hours on end on their soapbox publicly WITHOUT even identifying themselves...That's an important part of what freedom is all about...

Spencer Collins · #7 (**permalink**) 07-18-2010, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

You ARE wrong...The Republicans have issues with elements WITHIN the bill that make it unedible...

In your dreams....sure,there are always "elements" of a bill worthy of objection but that doesn't negate the fact that many Republicans would fight any legislation that would (require)..corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign.You know very well that they also object to all of the above..

cnredd · #8 (**permalink**) 07-18-2010, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

In your dreams....sure,there are always "elements" of a bill worthy of objection but that doesn't negate the fact that many Republicans would fight any legislation that would (require)..corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign.You know very well that they also object to all of the above..

If it's done in an unconstitutional way, of course!...

I didn't think you'd jump on the "Ends justify the means" bandwagon and support outcomes by way of destroying process...

Spencer Collins · #9 (**permalink**) 07-18-2010, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

If it's done in an unconstitutional way, of course!...

I didn't think you'd jump on the "Ends justify the means" bandwagon and support outcomes by way of destroying process...

That's not what I'm saying and you should know better...I support the process completely. What I am saying is this...even if the process is perfect,Republicans would fight any legislation that would (require)..corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign.

As I stated earlier in this thread...I hope I am proved wrong on this..

Again....

Republicans would fight any legislation that would (require)..corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign.

If I am proved wrong on this and they do (eventually) fully support all of the above,even in a different bill,there will be no sting in being proved wrong,I would be most pleased..

-0-

cnredd · #10 (**permalink**) 07-18-2010, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

That's not what I'm saying and you should know better...I support the process completely. What I am saying is this...even if the process is perfect,Republicans would fight any legislation that would (require)..corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign.

As I stated earlier in this thread...I hope I am proved wrong on this..

Again....

Republicans would fight any legislation that would (require)..corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign.

If I am proved wrong on this and they do (eventually) fully support all of the above,even in a different bill,there will be no sting in being proved wrong,I would be most pleased..

-0-

But what you're saying is a hypothetical...

Republicans opposing a bill that's written well will still get a "no" vote according to you...and you're hoping to be proven wrong...

But that will NEVER HAPPEN because, in reality, the bill being pushed is NOT written well...

By supportting THIS VERSION of the bill, YOU are supporting this (why???)...

Quote:

“Yesterday, at the House Administration markup of the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175), Democrats blocked GOP attempts to apply the legislation’s restrictions to unions,” reads a press release from the Committee on House Administration Republican office.

“Despite public promises to treat corporations and unions equally,” the release says, “Democrats are insisting that unions be exempted from their proposed restrictions on political speech.”

According to The Hill, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the SEIU plan to spend $100 million in the lead-up to November’s elections.

GOP members say such behavior proves that Democrats have little interest in reforming campaign finance. Democrats on the Committee on House Administration voted down the party line against a proposed amendment that would do away with language “[banning] speech by business corporations with government contracts but not speech by prominent labor unions in collective bargaining agreements with the government,” according to a memo Republicans released on Wednesday.

I'm going to specify a point made here...

Quote:

Democrats blocked GOP attempts to apply the legislation’s restrictions to unions

Get that Spence?...

Your original article says this...

Quote:

The legislation would require corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly disclose financing of TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign.

As you can see by what REALLY HAPPENED, your original article is a lie...Unions are EXEMPT...

And when the Republicans tried to correct that with an amendment, it was the DEMOCRATS that became "the party of "no""...

By supporting this bill you ADVOCATE unions from being exempt from the same campaign regulations corporations are..."Both sides are doing something I believe is wrong, but it's OK to regulate one perceived side of the aisle and let the other perceived side slide unfettered because it benefits my candidates politically."....

I find that horrible legislation and am confused as all hell why you (or anyone) would want something like this passed...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
AZRWinger