E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated at 5:38pm ET When Republicans won control of the House and picked up six Democratic-held seats in the Senate in 2010, they were greatly helped by the money spent by 501c4 tax exempt groups which had been given new freedom to run ads by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and by FEC rulings.
According to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity, 501c4s spent nearly $95 million in the 2010 campaign.
Pete Marovich / Getty Images
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
Since donors to 501c4 groups aren’t required to be identified publicly, this vehicle is ideal for those who prefer to exert quiet and hidden influence. Citizens United did not change the long-standing law that those who give $200 or more to a candidate or party committee must be identified; it also didn’t remove the ban on direct contributions to candidates by corporations or labor unions.
Less than two months before Election Day 2010, the Senate blocked a vote on a bill, the Disclose Act, to stop corporations, unions and individual donors from unlimited and undisclosed independent campaign spending. The bill fell one vote short of the 60 it needed to move ahead to passage.
In the run-up to this year’s pivotal election, Democrats have been working hard to try to raise the issue for political advantage, although Democratic operatives have set up 501c4 groups to try to counteract conservartive groups.
SEIU President Mary Kay Henry talks about the massive union spending campaign designed to counter the conservative Super PAC money machine.
On Monday the Senate will revisit the question of forcing disclosure of secret political donors. It will vote on whether to proceed with a new version of the Disclose Act sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D- R.I.
Meredith McGehee, the policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group which supports the bill, said she doesn’t have any expectation that the bill will get the 60 votes it needs, but the vote will “ensure that this issue remains on the radar screen. It’s really important that the American people and the media be aware of exactly what’s going on right now – that this dark money… is really playing an enormous role and we don’t know much about it…..”
She added, “At this moment it’s really important to get senators on the record” on disclosing political spending.
Reform advocates contend that voters need to know who pays for political messages in order to evaluate their purpose and accuracy.
If, for example, a group is running ads attacking President Obama and his Affordable Care Act, reformers argue that if the donors to that group were revealed to be health insurance companies, “that helps them (voters) address the credibility of those ads and the interest of the speaker,” said Tara Malloy, senior counsel at Campaign Legal Center.
But the Club for Growth, a free-market oriented and low-tax advocacy group, urged a “no” vote. The bill, it said, “seeks to apply costly disclosure and compliance regulations that restrict political free speech.”
A few factors make Monday’s vote different from the one in 2010:
- The new Whitehouse bill is a substantially different version of the 2010 bill. It would not take effect until after the 2012 election and wouldn’t require each ad to include a tag line or “disclaimer” in which the group running the ad identified itself. But it retains the essence of disclosure: any donor who gave $10,000 or more to a 501c4 group that spent money on political advertising would need to be identified and disclosed.
- In 2010, no Republican senator voted for cloture. But this time advocates for the Whitehouse bill hope that a handful of Republicans might join Democrats in pushing the bill forward. McGehee identified two of the Republicans who aren’t running for re-election this year -- Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine – as possible supporters. The target list also includes Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.
- In 2010 the effects of the Citizens United decision were still new and not fully felt. But since then voters and senators have had a chance to see the effects of the spending by 501c4s and other groups called Super PACs. If they’re distressed by the number and stridency of political ads, Monday’s vote would be a chance to start putting limits on independent political spending.
- In 2010 there were only 41 Republican senators. Now there are 47 – and Republicans have a reasonably good chance of regaining control of the Senate in November. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report currently has seven Democratic-held seats in its toss-up category (even the one in the longtime Democratic bastion of Hawaii, which hasn’t elected a GOP senator in 42 years). Only three Republican-held seats as rated as tossups by Cook. Another Democratic-held seat, in Nebraska, is rated as “Likely Republican.” So Republicans – who up to this point have benefited more from 501c4 spending than have the Democrats – have every incentive to not change the rules, even for the 2014 cycle.
The issue could play a role in some Senate races. In the toss-up race in Massachusetts, Brown voted ‘no’ on cloture in 2010 and his opponent Elizabeth Warren is pressing him on this vote.
“Billionaires and big corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money during campaigns while they hide behind a curtain of secrecy,” Warren said Friday in a statement. “Unfortunately, Scott Brown and Republicans in the Senate have blocked this common sense measure. It’s time for them to stop protecting their influential friends by helping them hide their influence from the public.”
Brown called the Disclose Act “a cynical political ploy masquerading as reform and I continue to oppose it. Rather than treat all sides equally as a true reform bill would, it contains special carve outs for union bosses and other favored interest groups.”
Although proponents of the bill say it doesn’t give any special favored treatment to unions, the bill would have a heavier impact on 501c4s who raise their money from a small group of high-dollar donors than on unions which collect their money in smaller increments from thousands of union members in the form of dues.
Leave a Comment:
Should be reason enough to vote a straight Dem ticket. Undisclosed money will eventually corrupt our political structure even more than it is now. When Americans are out voiced by international corporations, then this land doesn't belong to us anymore.
If corporations are people (according to mitt), then can they be legally owned? I don't believe they are, but if we make them people, then they must be treated as people. Free the Corps!! Can they be jailed? Silly reasoning brought us to an absurd decision to make them people, all so politicains could create a loophole for donors.
If you had the slightest understanding of the law, you would know that corporations have been considered to have the same rights as a natural person, and this has been the case for well over 100 years.
Lincoln warned about corporations:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
As far as voting straight ANYTHING, only an imbecile would vote straight party lines. Both Dems and Republicans are crooks. Until we have term limits, everything will remain the same.
So, more meaningless votes by an incompetent Senate. How about scheduling a vote for a budget or some of the bills that have been tabled by Mr. Reid rather than bringing them to a vote because he doesn't agree with them. This does nothing as it will not pass in the house even if the senate can pass it. And isn't it the left that has been screaming at the GOP controlled house to stop the political votes and get something done!?
I think part of the Supreme Courts decision included a clause that said donors don't have to disclose who they are. Does that not make this disclosure bill unconstitutioal.
lilDi....."I think part of the Supreme Courts decision included a clause that said donors don't have to disclose who they are. Does that not make this disclosure bill unconstitutional."
Everything this administration and Senate does is highly controversial. If the thing doesn't get the required votes, expect this administration to do an back-door-run, then that too will wind up in SCOTUS.
Amazing isn't it....the legislation resurfaces as "re-written" and will be pushed by Reid even though he is sitting on OTHER legislation.
@Want the Truth - It's interesting you used a quote from Lincoln.
This "corporations are people" thing is such BS. If that's reality then they have to abide by all the same rules as human people; it cannot be in name only. You can't own people, it's called slavery. They should fall under the same rules and regs as people who have red blood flowing through their veins. Would that make humans that work for corporations indentured servants?
If corporations are people and have free speech then why don't they pay taxes at the Individual (people) rate? The law should forbid any corporate, union, or any organizational money from the campaigns. Individuals are already restricted to $2500 dollars. Unlimited contributions is nothing more than allowing a "heckler's veto" in the political process. If you are mega rich like Adelson or the Koch brothers you can bury the voices of the people in a avalanche of cash. It's vote buying plane and simple.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0124.htm
The decision seemed to scream for limits, restrictions, and disclosure to be instituted.
You mean scheduling a vote on some of the 33 bills to repeal Obamacare?
I think Mr Reid would love to schedule a vote to reduce taxes on the middle class, can you persuade the House to send him one?
Or how about a bill to work on the infrastructure of the country? Or a stimulus bill?
It would seem that the Republican majority in the House is just too busy incessantly repealing Obamacare and anti-women's rights bills. They can't afford to be distracted by such trivial things such as the economy and the needs of the middle class.
In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Justice Kennedy writing for the majority stated that (sic) transparency enables voters to make informed decisions, review the speakers, and attempt to judge the motivation of the message. The very act that allows for corporations to be considered people requires responsibility on the part of the corporation with regard for transparency. Having a first amendment right to free speech does not automatically promise anonymity when you are making statements to the public. This seems to be especially true when you are talking about election finance law (such as McCain-Feingold).
Conservatives argue that they are concerned with retaliation as a result of donor lists going public. However this argument was rejected in Buckley v. Valleo (1976).
Personally I am very in favor of transparency in electioneering, but I don't think this goes far enough. I want ALL organizations (corporations, 501C4's, unions, private non-profits, etc) to make their "political speech" donors lists available for public scrutiny.
what about unions directing their memberships' money toward campaigns? SEIU directed their membership to about $200 million dollars.
each campaign should be allowed to spend the same amount of dollars, no matter what. they should debate more and people will be able to vote on what the candidates say, not what their ads and surrogates state/say.
A recent article on Yahoo stated that "since 2006 unions have contributed $4.4 BILLION on political activities..." That's a lot of money that isn't being being disclosed either!! When the unions disclose as much as you want superPAC's to disclose then we can have a discussion...
When Americans are out voiced by international corporations. They already are by the FOREIGN companies that contribute to the UNITED STATES Chamber of Commerce.
If we are to be a country where everyone is created equal then there should be a limit to contributions. A billionaire should not have more of a voice in who is elected for office than a middle class person that cannot match the billionaire's unlimited contributions. A billionaire gets one vote just as the middle class worker does so the amount of money each gives should also be equal. Maximum donations should be limited to $100 per person, union, and corporation. Any more should be subject to prosecution as election fraud.
And no foreign money should be allowed in any way or amount.
Furthermore I believe that any political ad should have the speaker/payer identified so voters can understand where the message is coming from. In other words if the UAW or SEIU want to pay for a political ad supporting the candidate they wish the union should be identified as the one paying for the ad. If the Koch brothers want to air an ad they should have to identify themselves as the person paying for the ad. Same with insurance companies, oil companies, or any other business/organization that has a political message to put on the air for public viewing. No political ad should be aired without identifying who paid for the ad. That would be fair free speech. Anonymous free speech is BS.
Did you hear the story of a theater director out here in California that donated to Prop 8 which supported one man one woman marriage, and was basically run out of town once his name was disclosed in public? Is that the intent of this law? We all know that Unions can aggregate money in the millions without having to disclose the individual donors, right? So what they really want to do is intimidate those that might contribute to causes they don't agree with, then disclose the list and get the AFL-CIO picketing in their front yard (which they do). Or maybe the SEIU picketing their business (which they do), or AFSCME picketing the school of a principal who dared to support School Choice (which they did). And you wonder why someone might want to remain anonymous?
It amazes me that those on the right complain about the unions who are open with who they support. They're not trying to hide from their point of view because they are proud of who they support and will debate you on it. On the other hand the billionaires and corporations want to hide behind a veil of secrecy to avoid any potential backlash from their point of view. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
If the director was run out of town he had an opinion that everybody else didn't agree with. Anonymous free speech is BS.
If it isn't disclosed then how do you know about it? With the SuperPac's we NEVER get to find out who is giving the money? The whole idea of money being free speech is bogus anyway. By this definition, more money equals more free speech so this right is not equally available. Why should a person born rich have a greater right to speak than someone born poor?
If it gets passed in the Senate, perhaps Boehner (leader of the House) should make an agreement with Harry Reid (leader in the Senate) - We'll discuss the Senate bill if you agree to discuss the 25 House bills Reid is sitting on.
I've lost count on how many states are changing the requirements on voter ID... In order to vote you must now show ID that that state approves of... Well, if an American needs to show proof he/she is American then why not all these Super Packs that donate money to influence voting... Show proof of who you are and where your from... Show us your ID...
Name, Amount disclosed... Nothing wrong with that... I have no problem divulging my name when I give money to a campaign, neither should anyone else...
It works both ways, I don't want to hear the whinning of Republician or Democratic Politicians about "Hidden Donors" and amounts until they UPHOLD the law and enforce voters to show something so basic as a PICTURE ID to vote. The Politicians want to cry foul, OMG. Tell the LEGAL CITIZENS of AMERICA about foul. No Mas, No Bama 2012
Since the corp tax is 35%, then paying 10-15% would be great for those corps.
How conveniently you leave out George Soros who bought and paid for the Democratic party 12 years ago.
We have more pressing things like maybe passing a Budget in the Senate, or the many jobs bills that the House has sent to them, then worrying about this. The only reason Reid is even putting it on the floor is because the democrats are not getting their corporate sponsors this year like in the past. Now if they were beating the GOP in contributions you can bet this wouldn't even be coming up for a vote. Its quite predictable and really laughable.....
THE HOUSE BILLS ALL SUCK there's not a single god damm good thing coming out of the house the house has no clue as they are all republican idiots republicans have no good ideas none.
We have to stop the selling of our Nation to the special interest.
job1
everybody should have a cap on donation's.
Let's get the names of every Teapublican who votes against this -- At least make it transparent who votes against transparency! Oh, this will be fodder in campaign ads, either way, along with the other litany the GOP/TP has been up to.
Or everyone should put their donor's names on their cap like sports.
Wow, the Harry Reid led senate is actually voting on a piece of legislation. Miracles do happen. Now maybe he can put forth a budget and quit playing politics at the nations expense. While all you liberals are complaining about voting transparency, can you explain a senators position when they vote present?
Yep Rick, the senate is trying once again to overcome yet another repub blockage. We will see, but....
Senate to Vote on DISCLOSE Act Monday, McConnell Pledges Filibuster (July 12, 2012)
.
Senate Republicans Again Block DISCLOSE Act, Designed to Reveal Special Interest Spending (September 23, 2010)
.
SENATE GOP BLOCKS VOTE, KILLS DISCLOSE ACT (July 27, 2010)
.
It was sponsored by Charles Schumer (D-NY) in the Senate; all 59 dems voted for it, and 39 repub's voted against it. That bill needed 60 votes to pass....and didn't because of the repub's. In the House it was sponsored by Christopher Van Hollen (D-MD) and was passed; with 219 dems voting for it, and 169 repub's voting against it.
Obama was two years in office before he ever invited the senate minority leader to the White House. On the House side for those first two years it was as Pelosi put it, we won we write the bills. Obama ran on a platform of changing the way Washington worked, and he did exactly that by making it completely partisan. No compromise, and no working together. It was Obama, Reid, and Pelosi's way or the highway.
But what I love about liberals is how stupid they are about the way people vote. Members will vote in favor of a bill they know is going to be defeated just so they can say they were for it. Members are given a chance to vote against a bill they know will pass anyway solely for political expediency. The Democrats no more want full disclosure then the Republicans do, but they know it will be defeated and this is all for show. Only liberals are stupid enough to think otherwise.
Well, we wont know that for sure. But it would have taken just one Republican to vote responsibly....to pass the that bill.
As far as not being invited to the White House....OMG cry me a river, baby! lol But when repubs call the President a liar during a major speech, and when the Senate Minority Leader says he's using the power of his whole party against the President....not being invited to the WH is minute and petty. Tell your leaders to start working FOR the American people and not just AGAINST the President.
Shouldn't we the People vote on this instead of politicians?
It works both ways, I don't want to hear the whinning of Republician or Democratic Politicians about "Hidden Donors" and amounts until they UPHOLD the law and enforce voters to show something so basic as a PICTURE ID to vote. The Politicians want to cry foul, OMG. Tell the LEGAL CITIZENS of AMERICA about foul. No Mas, No Bama 2012
Thank you job1,i believe everyone should be treated the same way 2500.00 cap for everyone!
Tommy some of the older people don't have I.D.s they have voted for years,fought wars for us.Tell me they don't have the right to vote!
No Mike, I will not tell you they don't have the right to vote, they CERTAINLY do. I just don't believe it's asking to much for anyone to go to the DMV and get an official issued ID from the state in which they live for 5.00 bucks. I know several people thay have lost their right to drive from DWI's, etc and they went to the DMV to have a State issued ID. Same day process. They issue them every day. I mean in Mexico, they finger print you before they can vote. Are we that careless about our voting rights in the United States that a Picture ID to vote is asking to much or is to troublesome?
When we the people keep sending the same people to Washington, you are voting on this legislation. Washington if full of clowns that work for themselves, just look at the perks and benefits of working in Washington they voted for themselves. Then those same clowns work for special interest groups, as there is no reason to go to Washington and not stuff your pockets with IOU's or payout some political favors. Do they actually work for the American people, no not really, just look at the condition of the country for all the proof you need.
Any politician not supporting full disclosure in our elections is a fraud.
Uhhhhh, it is recommended you re-direct your "full disclosure" comment to the White House.
Any politician not supporting full disclosure in our elections is a fraud. Chalk up a NO vote by 47 Republicans in the Senate.
No one in Washington wants full disclosure. But as long as they know the bill will be voted down they will put it up for a vote. Just another example of politics for show.
Any politician that votes present instead of yea or nay is a fraud. Washington created the cesspool they all swim in, and the American people allow it by sending the same people back time and time again. The real fraud is that any of them actually work for us, they work for themselves, special interest groups, and their cronies. If you can only find fault with one political party, then you are part of the problem.
Free speech doesn't mean anonymous speech. We have the best government money can buy.
Why all the fuss? Supreme Court voted for the Conservative crowd on this one, and voted for the Liberal crowd on health care. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Shut up, stop squawking, move on. What the Senate headed by Majority Leader Harry Reid should be doing, is submitting a national budget! He's too busy fartin' around with things already settled by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, no budgets by the Senate since Obama took office.
Meanwhile, the government is being sold to the highest bidder.
You don't see the difference, sad. Think of it this way, if a good civil rights lawyer decides to free a corporation from being owned (since they are considered people) it will destroy capitalism as we know it. It would destroy the free market. I bet the law would change in days if ownership of corporations were threatened. Our super sluggish system will react it record speed for their handlers.
Michael,
Actually it's Boehner and McConnell that are fighting Supreme Court decisions. Case in point, the 33 votes in the House to repeal the Health Care Act. The Supremes said it's the law of the land; move on. As long as I'm here, let me also kill your Senate Budget myth. Budgets are the responsibility of both Houses, not the Senate alone. The way the process normally works is that each House will pass their own version, but one that can then be negotiated into a single piece of legislation that is acceptable to the President. The way it is today, the House GOP passed the Ryan Budget which they know is totally unacceptable to the Democrats in the House, Senate and the White House, (never mind to the 59M Americans who elected Obama), and then tried to ram it down their throats. This was about scoring points with their Tea Partiers, not about governing. Finally, you do realize that the Congress has to approve every penny the President spends, whether or not they have a budget, don't you? They can blame Obama for all the deficit spending, but they have just as much responsibility for it as he does. Check that; they have more because they can change the tax laws to increase revenue and reduce the deficit, or cut the corporate welfare, or reduce the incredible levels of military spending. Of course, as long as they can fool peopole like you, they will continue to do so. It's all really your fault.
The Senate is NOT the branch of congress that is supposed to be writing the budget. The House is.
True the Senate does not write budgets and equally true that the Democratic Senate will not even vote on one that passed the House. You cannot compromise on anything until it is debated.
How many Republican Senators who are up for re-election want to vote on the House passed budget bill? More than likely, none. Vote against the budget bill and they get hit by the faithful. Vote for it and they are voting to all but eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as we know it and get hit by seniors and progressives of all ages!
Ryan did not do his party any favors moving that POS from the House to the Senate.
Its a no brainer
of course a politician should disclose where the moneys cumming from
and shut the round door
a national budget! A NATIONAL budget could have been passed in 2007-209 BUT, Senate rules allow ONE Senator to block anything. Also when the disaster that was the Bush Presidency ONLY 50 votes plus dick Cheney were required to destroy America. Since January 2009 60 votes have been required to pass almost anything. Unfortunately there were four Republicans posing as Democrats who sided with the Republicans to block anything from being accomplished. Of course we also are well aware of Mitch McConnell's only purpose for the past 3 and 1/2 years has been to ensure that Barack Obama would be only a one-term President. Too bad Kentucky voters won't send him home to the Kentucky coal mines in November.
Hey CAL, the House HAS SUBMITTED BUDGETS. The Senate won't bring it up for a vote, because Harry Reid doesn't want to be seen as voting for anything that would cut anything. The House passes a bill, and moves it on to the Senate, who does nothing.
I'll be writing to my Reps to make sure they support this issue - or else!
good @!$%#ing luck
ps- you dont have any reps
All this is lets not let America be brought and sold to the highest bidder, American or Foreign
We the people have a right to know who is behind all the ads , weather it be Republican, Democrat, Big Companies, Unions or Single Billionaires or Millionaires
This of course will never happen in getting passed , due to the very same people with money will make sure
they keep control of our Government, Supreme Court and make sure the common people are not allowed to vote
by putting in more Voter Suppression Laws
If we the people knew who they were we could Boycott the Companies and their Products
I sure don't want to support companies that vote against me
I want to know who is trying to take away my Health Care, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Keep me paying higher rates for Health Care, Insurance,
Vote these people out that block this bill
Down with the KOCH Brothers, Carl Rove, Dick Army, Mitt Romney
If everything is totally anonymous what is to prevent China or Iran from spending a billion dollars to get their guy in as president?
You don't think they aren't? Plus there are the crime lords, look at the money coming out of Los Vages
Why was this blocked in 2010?
Less than two months before Election Day 2010, the Senate blocked a vote on a bill, the Disclose Act, to stop corporations, unions and individual donors from unlimited and undisclosed independent campaign spending. The bill fell one vote short of the 60 it needed to move ahead to passage.
Don't forget, the Dems had and still have control of the Senate.
Not when the republicans fillibuster everything. Control of a body where simple majority is no longer the rule is not control.
They may have a majority, but not fillibuster proof control.
Dem4Freedom
Why was this blocked in 2010? Because there were and are four Democrats who vote as Republicans. At least on of those (Ben Nelson, Colorado) is retiring, but because the silent majority is likely to sit on their posterior again, he will be replaced by an actual Republican.
How do we get this on the ballot so we can put it up to a vote and tell our leaders we're very serious about this?
You can't.... you have to 'trust' your elected crooks to do the peoples work. That's why they are paid $174,000.00 a year. Except Harry and John who each get $224,000.00.
That's a lot less than I assumed - wow. Not really great pay...
Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of people don't make that much money, but I'm surprised it's not more.
trust me, they make far more than that with speaking fees and insider trading....
when your ready to get a bloody nose
butt butt butt butt butt
Full Disclosure is a requirement to keep Foreiners from buying an election. The Republicans should like this as they are so affraid of "voter fraud", this should fall into that category.
Agreed. If donors can remain anonymous, how can you prove that foreign money is not influencing our elections?
SCOTUS really screwed up that call...
The Republicans should like this as they are so afraid of "voter fraud", this should fall into that category. Republicans only want to block AMERICANS from voting. They are not interested in blocking FOREIGN money buying American elections.
You're right, Rookie: Yea, lets go a step further, and (using the Republican logic), make all donors submit valid ID's or maybe even their long form birth records....which would be posted in the newspapers and online. Lets SEE these people who are buying our futures.
The "Citizens United" ruling of the HORRIBLY FLAWED SUPRENE COURT, is the GREATEST threat to DEMOCRACY and INTELIGENT GOVERNANCE in the history of the U S A!
The so called super pacs, you will note, are organized, managed and funded by individuals that pose a grave danger to the U S A remianing a DEMOCRACY! These individuals are self centered, self interested, selfish, greedy and they are not Christians, their goals and initatives mirror those of Valdimar Putin of Russia!
Our DEMOCRACY, in order to survive MUST be GOVERNED by ALL of the PEOPLE, of ALL the PEOPLE and for ALL the people! The so called super pacs are for those who contribute, of those who contribute and will benefit only those who contribute to their specific agenda!
Far to many voters see elections as games without any implications, this could not be farther from the truth, it is imperative that voters determine what is HONESTLY IN THEIR PERSONAL BEST INTEREST before they cast their ballott! DO NOT BELEIVE THE POLITICAL TALKING POINTS, they are 98% DESIGNED TO MISLEAD and hide the TRUTH!
One of the tests the justices used to determine the constitutionality of Citizens United was if the law resulted in the corruption of the U.S. election system. Four said YES and five said NO. Any 4th grader could have seen that it would lead to corruption in the election system. I would say the Supreme Court is the corrupt system here.
The USA is a Constitutional Republic that is slowly but surely becoming a third world democracy by Progessive thought.
The point here is that 5 Republican appointed justices said it would not corrupt the system and 4 Democrat appointed justices said correctly that it would corrupt the system.
If Republicans get their dream, Mitt Romney will be elected, they will become the majority in the Senate, then Romney will probably get an opportunity to name up to three more Scalia's, Thomas' to the Supreme Court and be rubber stamped.
and that is what is so scary.
It doesn't matter which party you belong to or if you are an independent.
The money spent on political races is obscene. There sould be a strict limit on spending for
each legitimate candidate for each office. People should be voting for the candidate for his ideas not
how much money he has to spend(oops or she). Maybe then we would have people in office that have
all the peoples best interests at heart....not just the interests of those that gave the money that got them elected.
Greg-3545730,this is not a perfect world and will never be one,getting money out of the picture in political campaigning is hopelessly unrealistic.Full disclosure of contibutions to Super-Pacs would have been a step in the right direction. The PLUtOCRATS who control the Republican party are trying to turn the USA into plutocratic GULAG,aided and abetted by SCOTUS which appears to be in cahouts with them.I can not possibly fathom why a large portion of the citizens of this country are so obtuse and clueless as to appear unperturbed by the danger of unlimited and undisclosed campaign contributions by the 0.01 percenters!!
I'd be all for disclosure since there is no "felony" committed by donating a couple million, as long as the information is only used for political purposes.
However, use of the information disclosed in order to facilitate dumpster diving, malicious (and anonymous) posting of lies, invading privacy, trying to ruin businesses or private lives should be a "felony".
Very good post that most will totally miss the point. Until it becomes a felony to lie about someone for political gain, donors have the right to privacy.
uuuh--no
how bout this huckleberry -- I'm not waiting for "it" to become a felony
mainly cause I'm not being represented
So I havent missed anything -dig?
a handfull of pimples dictate policy hiding behind the skirt of the constitution?
I respectfully address the powers that be since the chair has given me the floor
@!$%#-YOU
Well, donors who pay $10,000 and above to shady 501C4s have a "right" to privacy...we little people have to live with laws of disclosure. Kinda sounds like you are the one missing the point, NTS...
I'm all for free speech, but I don't consider money to be a form of speech. The rich have taken control of political influence and most of our law makers are in their pockets. If they are to argue money is a form of speech, fine, but no anonymous speakers please. I prefer to know where the message is coming from so I can give it the appropriate weight it deserves.
TV advertising isn't free. It takes money. Now if you want to ban TV advertising for any political reason, I'm all for it. The majority of the people in this country form their opinion based on the ads and almost all (from both sides) are half truths at best but are often outright lies.
Many European countries provide equal access to broadcast facilities to candidates without charge. These same countries, however, also limit the number of announcements a candidate may have. Maybe that's why candidates in these countries have to get out into the public and why they work like crazy building a cadre of campaign volunteers instead of a gaggle of fund raising bundlers.
Gee, I wonder which way every single Republican and probably some Democrats are going to vote on this issue? It is such a head scratcher, but I am going out on a limb and say...The vote will be to hide their donors and screw transparency to the people who elected them. Now I could be wrong, but...
It'll be interesting to see how each of the 'Nay' voters will spin and twist the argument, after the vote.
If it should pass, then in keeping with the Republican's "we're scared of all this voter fraud (that's not documented)" stance....then like other commenter's, I'd suggest we have each and every donor (to any politician or PAC) to submit a valid ID. The ID, along with the amount(s) would then be posted throughout the media.
Those who would vote against full disclosure of political donors will likely use the old 'privacy' crutch. They will say that it's no one's business who contributes to campaigns. These same hypocrites will also shout loud and long that no woman has a right to privacy when it comes to reproductive choices.
If you think the Wingnuts want us to know that China gave them 100 million for ads to tell lies...your on the wrong planet!....it doesn't have a chance...where's all this transparently we hear about?....Lies are the Wingnut way of doing things....I love the one about Obama promising 8% unemployment then they call him a liar....LOL! They've stopped every bill to create jobs presented....and the Wingnut Governors are laying off people left and right to keep any jobs from being created!.... Good Luck USA! We are in deep do do Many Thanks to Bush for tax cuts starting wars with NO funding...and the GLOBAL crisis....
“seeks to apply costly disclosure and compliance regulations that restrict political free speech.”
If you want to claim free speech, it has to come from a US Citizen as free speech is guaranteed to US CITIZENS, and without know WHO YOU ARE, we cannot be assured your speech is coming from a US CITIZEN.
I now have to prove my citizenship to obtain a Drivers License, so why don't these morons have to prove they are US Citizens to have a huge impact on our politics? The RepukliCONs want us to have a photo ID to vote, but anyone can buy lying statements on TV, even Corporations from Iran....
Apparently the Teabagger's New GOP likes corporatism (fascism) and would like nothing more than a plutocracy. They make the Old GOPhers like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford & even Reagan look like solid Democrats. The teabaggers need to go.
Citizens United was a perfect answer to unions donations to the democrat party. Disclosure is not necessary unless it fully affects BOTH SIDES.
On another note, I have seen a lot of stories about zombies lately.... The dead have always voted in Chicago elections..... Why so much interest in them now?
Amen Dawn! By the way, if I trim my beard, would you like to maybe get coffee sometime?
When are you coming to Wyoming? obama's economy has me to where I haven't left city limits for over three months... and the "city" is only two square miles. Also, I am pushing sixty harder than I like to remember, not thirty.
Thank you both for a big waste of our time. Spinning old lies and somehow managing to work Obama bashing into planning a date. Geez, Dawn, you must just be so much fun at parties.
unions are made up of hard working citzens super pacs are made of greedy corporate asshats who need bullets in their brains.
Who cares who contributed to a particular campain advertisement. This whole issue about disclosure ties itself to the belief that we as citizens are unable to evaluate the decide about the content or assertion in a campain ad. I don't care who pays for an ad, I care about what the ad conveys...
Actually, most people tend to believe that anything they agree with is true...but if you suddenly found out that all those attack ads you rally behind are paid for by GE or China, you may not want to be so blind in agreeing anymore.
If you don't see that who contributes the money has everything to do with what is professed in political ads, then I'm sure the Teaparty would be glad to speak with you.
For all but two years of my political life, which spans forty-eight years (and I had an opinion about Kennedy four years before that), the democrats had a source of money that didn't have a face, the unions. With Citizens United, the corporations gained a political voice that didn't have to worry about hiding every penny they donated to the Republicans. Democrats cried, I rejoiced.
Corporate donors are business investing ina safe business climate. Unios are corporations of labor that invest in a climate where the worker has a voice. What is the real difference, except that the democrats want to limit the power of business intrests by forcing disclosure?
First, sounds like you need to do a little more research on laws restriction union contributions and the PACs they later formed.
Second, why did union contributions bother you? Was it the fact that they were influencing campaigns? Was it the fact that members of unions already had their vote and their free speech, and it wasn't necessary to double-down by giving free speech and a "vote" through unlimited contributions to unions?
'Cause that's kind of why the rest of us are pissed about Citizens United.
CORPORATIONS DO NOT DESERVE A VOICE. Corporations are a blight upon the landscape there is not a single gd corporation that has anything even remotley approaching values how dare you compare unions groups made up of hard working people to those idiots that run corporations? Corporations need to be even more regulated than they are they do not deserve rights or respect all they care about is money they don't care who they screw over to get it they are evil.
Just another reasonable law requested by democrats. It's ok that they get outspent 25 to 1 like in wisconson, but at least they should know who is footing the bill.
But i tell you the worst offenders is the socialistic welfare groups like the chamber of commerce and karl rove's organization. They spend 10 times more money than any superpac and more than the rnc and dnc combined. And the chamber of commerce has already said that they will refuse to release any donor names, especially those from foreign countries and govts. Karl rover has said similar things in addition to that his organization is not and has never been associated with politics.
There are some who say the mr grover, the gop, & the rushbo have soooo many lies upon lies that you have no idea where to start.
So Republicans have to disclose, but the democrats shouldn't disclose how much of their money comes from China (Clinton 1996 and Gore 2000 and Clinton 2008) or the unions (any election since 1917)?
Democrats............... Masters of Applying the Double Standard
No, Dawn, I don't see that is what Marshall said. Nice try, with the spin though. Did the 'cut and gut' republican plan, close your school before you graduated?
Transparency is needed for both sides, and the dems proposed it. The repub's blocked it. It was voted on in the House, and dems voted 217 FOR it....repub's voted 170 AGAINST it. And in the Senate, dems voted 59 FOR it....repub's voted 39 AGAINST it.