Failure To DISCLOSE
Despite what you may think from that title, this article has nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Or, at least, not directly.
For the past two days, Democrats fought in the Senate to pass the "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act," otherwise known as the DISCLOSE Act. Today, they failed to break a Republican filibuster attempt, and while a majority of 53 senators voted for it, 45 voted against it -- including 14 Republicans who had previously voted for it the last time the bill came before the Senate.
The DISCLOSE Act would force political donors of $10,000 or more to (as the name suggests) disclose their political expenditures publicly. This should not be a partisan bill -- it applies equally to unions, corporations, and individuals. It would not change any campaign finance laws (who is allowed to give what to whom) -- it would merely shine some disinfecting sunlight on the process.
Democrats in the Senate, led by folks such as Sheldon Whitehouse, Al Franken, and Carl Levin (as well as plenty of others), held a late-night vigil last night to force a vote. Today, they held a second vote. Both times, Republicans killed the legislation on party lines.
Below are some reactions to the failure to pass the DISCLOSE Act:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
Today, Senate Republicans had yet another opportunity to promote transparency in our political system; yet, for the second day in a row, Republicans chose to protect the special interests and allow secret corporate dollars to dominate our elections.
Americans have already seen the widespread impact of unlimited corporate dollars flooding our airwaves. All voters deserve to know who is behind these advertisements, who is influencing candidates and campaigns, and who is hiding behind the Republican effort to keep donors in the shadows.
In the past, Democrats and Republicans have agreed that 'sunlight is the best disinfectant.' Now, it's time to back up those words with deeds. We must pass the DISCLOSE Act to restore accountability to our campaigns, ensure a level playing field in our politics, promote fairness for our middle class, and let the voters decide the outcome of our elections.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [from his floor speech]
More than 100 years ago, moneyed special interests had already tested the integrity of this country's political system.
In 1899, Copper billionaire William Clark was elected to the United States Senate by the Montana state legislature. The contest was considered so blatantly swayed by bribery, the Senate refused to seat him.
Clark famously responded: "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale."
Incensed Montana voters went on to pass the Corrupt Practices Act via referendum.
Less than a decade later, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt reined in unlimited corporate giving to political candidates at the federal level as well.
This nation has a long history of curtailing the corrupting influence of money in politics.
But with its Citizens United decision, the United States Supreme Court erased a century of effort to protect the fairness and integrity of American elections.
That disastrous decision opened the door for big corporations, anonymous billionaires and foreign interests to secretly spend hundreds of millions of dollars influencing voters.
. . .
The DISCLOSE Act would require political organizations of all stripes -- liberal and conservative alike -- to disclose donations in excess of $10,000 if they will be used for campaign purposes.
Safeguarding fair and transparent elections used to be an area where Democrats and Republicans could find common ground.
As far back as 1997, the Republican Leader said, "Disclosure is the best disinfectant."
In fact, 14 Republicans now serving in this body voted to support stronger disclosure laws in 2000.
Yet last night those 14 Republicans did an about-face. And every one of my Republican colleagues voted to block the DISCLOSE Act.
It is obvious Republicans' priority is to protect a handful of anonymous billionaires -- billionaires willing to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to change the outcome of a close presidential contest.
But today they'll have an opportunity to reconsider that backwards priority and stand up for the average voter instead.
I hope they join Democrats as we work to ensure all Americans -- not just the wealthy few -- have an equal voice in the political process.
Former Republican Senators Warren Rudman and Chuck Hagel
We believe that every senator should embrace the Disclose Act of 2012. This legislation treats trade unions and corporations equally and gives neither party an advantage. It is good for Republicans and it is good for Democrats. Most important, it is good for the American people.
Senator Al Franken [from a Huffington Post article he wrote yesterday]
[N]one of this spending is transparent, none of these spenders (or the candidates who profit from their spending) can be held accountable. We simply don't know who is wielding all this financial power in this year's elections. We just know it isn't us, the people. That's a system in need of disinfecting.
Which brings me back to the DISCLOSE Act. This bill doesn't overturn Citizens United. It doesn't limit how much money individuals or corporations can spend on independent expenditures. All it does is require that this spending be disclosed publicly. It reflects what used to be a bipartisan consensus around the effectiveness of transparency and disclosure in avoiding corruption.
But today -- unless, again, I'm pleasantly surprised -- all the Republicans in the Senate, including those who have specifically called for more disclosure in our system, will once again block it from proceeding.
In our country, a few have a lot more money than the rest. In our political system, money is power. And that means a few can have a lot more power than the rest. That's bad news for everyone else -- and for our democracy itself. And although we've always argued over how best to prevent that from happening, today's vote is yet another sign that some have decided to embrace that shift instead.
Senator Carl Levin [from his floor speech]
The remarkable system the Founders created has endured through war, crisis, depression and doubt. But we should not mistake that endurance for automatic permanence. Democracy requires that we maintain the vital connection between the people and their elected representatives. It must be the voters, and not the influential few, who choose our nation's leaders. If the people begin to doubt their central role in our government, it will be corrosive to democracy.
In recent months, there has been reason for just such doubt. A Supreme Court ruling has opened our system to a flood of unlimited and secret special-interest money. Inexplicably, a one-justice majority of the Court decided in the Citizens United case that such unlimited donations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
Now, many of us believed from the moment that decision was handed down that the Court's majority was badly mistaken. But events since that day have left little doubt. We have in recent months seen the dangerous consequences of the Court's ruling: a deluge of unregulated funds that has threatened to upend the election campaign for our nation's highest office, a flood whose organizers vow will upend congressional campaigns across the nation this summer and fall. Through "Super PACs" and through supposedly regulated, but in fact, actually unregulated nonprofit organizations, the conduits through which this flood of secret money flows, millionaires and billionaires already have made massive donations to fund a barrage of attack ads drenching, smothering the voices of those who are to make the decisions in our democracy -- the people.
. . .
This is not the democracy that men and women have fought to protect throughout our history. It's not the democracy the Founders adopted in our Constitution. As Adlai Stevenson, once put it: "Every man has a right to be heard; but no man has the right to strangle democracy with a single set of vocal chords." Yet this torrent of unregulated money threatens to strangle the voice of the people.
Mistaken though it may have been, the Supreme Court's decision stands until it is reversed. We are committed to uphold the rule of law even when we disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law. But we must be equally committed to the fight for a vibrant, open, representative democracy, one in which elections are determined not by the secret spending of billionaires, but by the will of the people.
The bill we seek to vote on would take an important step toward mitigating the damage of the Citizens United decision. The DISCLOSE Act of 2012 would help shine the light of day on what has been, since the Court's ruling, an underground sewer flow of hundreds of millions of dollars. It would require nonprofits engaged in partisan political activities to disclose their major donors and their expenditures. It would not stop the flow of unlimited money, because we cannot under the Citizens United ruling, but it would at least ensure that the people know who is trying to influence elections.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
I'm disappointed that so many of my Republican colleagues, many of whom have clearly supported disclosure in the past, chose today to once again defend secret spending by special interests rather than stand up for the voices of the middle class. However, I'm also optimistic that ultimately, we will pass this bill, or something like it, to end secret spending and defend the voices of the middle class.
I'm optimistic because throughout this debate, the American people made their voices heard loud and clear: they support the DISCLOSE Act, and they detest the secret spending that is poisoning our elections. Through phone calls, emails, online petitions, tweets, and more, people in Rhode Island and across the country joined Senate Democrats in shining a bright light on this issue and demonstrating a groundswell of popular support.
As I have said many times, I am cognizant of the fact that not every fight is won in the first round, or even the second or third round. But ultimately, history has shown that the will of the people always shines through.
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I don't agree with this bill at all. I think it's an invasion of privacy and does nothing more than provide the opposition with a list of people to intimidate.
This vote was no different than the one to repeal the ACA. A waste of time and money. We can't afford for the Hose and Senate to keep wasting millions of dollars on election-year votes designed to do nothing more than provide campaign talking-points.
The legislation is needed, but if it has no chance of passage we've more pressing problems we might actually be able to do something about to address.
Well, this is a first..
I agree with CB *AND* LD.....
Maybe I got up early this morning. :D
Michale.....
Just to clarify..
I agree with CB in that such disclosure will open up individuals to threats, intimidation and retaliation, such as we have seen in the last few months from the Left.
I also agree with LD in that this election-year "votes to nowhere" are a waste of time and money..
As an aside, LD deserves an honorable mention for taking Democrats to task over something beyond just not being hard enough on the Right...
While it's not taking the Right's side over the Left's, it's close and deserves a half a kewpie. :D
Michale.......
And, just for a humorous interlude....
http://sjfm.us/temp/funny2.jpg
:D
Michale.....
I agree with everyone :)
Although I believe campaign finance reform is still needed for sure.
I agree with everyone :)
Common ground.. A wonderful thing! :D
"Detente... It's a wonderful thing."
-Maureen Robinson, LOST IN SPACE
Although I believe campaign finance reform is still needed for sure.
No argument from me...
But, like the discussion about ObamaCare, no one can agree on REAL reform. Both the Left and the Right just want to further their own specific agendas, at the expense of REAL reform...
Michale
Again I absolutely agree. Both parties want reform that supports their own view.
What they should really do is take money (and thus negative ads) out of politics completely and have a system like the French where each candidate gets:
i. The same amount of money
ii. The same amount of airtime
iii. The same amount of talk-time in debates
The French enforce (iii) so strongly that they have a clock during debates which they use to ensure each candidate gets the same amount of time to the very second!
No parties would dare support a system like this because it takes away the advantages they have in the current system. Instead they want a system that keeps their advantages and removes the others.
What they should really do is take money (and thus negative ads) out of politics completely and have a system like the French where each candidate gets:
i. The same amount of money
ii. The same amount of airtime
iii. The same amount of talk-time in debates
That's exactly what I said a week or so ago.. :D
Matching funds. Each candidate gets x dollars and that's ALL they get..
I agree completely.. Take the money out of politics..
But, like you said. Neither Party would support that....
McCain & Obama said they would take public funds in 2008. Once Obama found out how much money he could raise, he reneged on his promise. So, McCain followed suit...
We'll never get the government we need until we take the money out of politics AND governing...
Michale.....
We'll never get the government we need until we take the money out of politics AND governing.
Agreed and well said.
Transparency would be a step in the right direction though.
If you can see when people are buying elections, it's less likely that those people will do it.
This is good legislation which I'm glad to see being pushed. If conservatives were pushing it, I'd say the same thing.
-David
If you can see when people are buying elections, it's less likely that those people will do it.
This is good legislation which I'm glad to see being pushed. If conservatives were pushing it, I'd say the same thing.
I would agree, if the crime of threats and intimidation for political purposes be elevated to the status of a Hate Crime and be prosecuted AND punished to the full extent of the law..
Agreed??
Michale....
I would agree, if the crime of threats and intimidation for political purposes be elevated to the status of a Hate Crime and be prosecuted AND punished to the full extent of the law..
AND victims of said Hate Crime be allowed to sue in civil court for large punitive damages...
Michale....
I would agree, if the crime of threats and intimidation for political purposes be elevated to the status of a Hate Crime and be prosecuted AND punished to the full extent of the law.
Huh?
I'm almost hesitant to ask what you're talking about. But I'm gonna do it.
What are you talking about?
-David
There are many examples of the Left harassing and intimidating donors of Republicans..
If you want transparent donor lists, then you MUST support harsher penalties for those who make threats and attempt to intimidate donors...
It's the ONLY fair way to go, if you expect donors to announce their donations..
Michale...
If you want transparent donor lists, then you MUST support harsher penalties for those who make threats and attempt to intimidate donors...
It's more than that. Even the mere thought that Code Pink or OWS might show up on your front laws is enough to potentially dissuade someone from contributing. And no American should feel intimidated about contributing, to get their voice heard in their own election process. The very reason our votes are kept private is to remove intimidation from the election process. For the same reason, I think donors names need to be kept private.
The very reason our votes are kept private is to remove intimidation from the election process. For the same reason, I think donors names need to be kept private.
That's a good point.. However, I think that once people started seeing jail time and having a criminal record for Hate Crimes, then the possibility of protests will go WAY down...
I would support more transparency if, along with it, Political Intimidation would be elevated to Hate Crime status, be considered a Class B Felony and severe punishments meted out for those who commit the crime.
Further, this new Hate Crime legislation would make it easy for victims to sue in federal court for Civil Rights Violations and obtain huge monetary settlements.
Under those conditions, I would support transparency in donors...
But I have a feeling the Left would balk at this..
They want to be free to be as intimidating and threatening as they can w/o fear of prosecution..
Real brave, those folks are, eh?? :^/ They don't mind terrorizing families from behind masks...
Well, I say let's unmask the cowardly bastards...
Michale....
Hay David...
I have a new shirt for you to wear!!
:D
https://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/romney_2012_entrepreneurtee_red_donationpage_360x288.jpg?1342615542
:D
Michale.....
There are many examples of the Left harassing and intimidating donors of Republicans.
Really? This sounds pretty dubious to me as I've never seen any examples of real harassment or intimidation. Everything I've seen so far has been trumped up foolishness like the New Black Panthers.
If anything criminal actually ever happened, people would be arrested and prosecuted as criminals.
But public demonstrations are not illegal.
Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are a part of our Constitution, no? It sounds like what you want to do is to make these things illegal.
I have a new shirt for you to wear!!
Hahahahahahah ... Nice. Are you sure you're ready for round 2?
:)
-David
p.s. Just because this is funny and we are talking about acts of protest!
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-man-stripped-nude-airport-not-guilty-224222940.html
Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are a part of our Constitution, no? It sounds like what you want to do is to make these things illegal.
Not when they are used to harass and intimidate innocent people.
Do I *REALLY* need to pull up all the links about the protests and vandalism that occurred at the residents of Bank Presidents, Republican Donors, etc etc..
Ever hear of SWATing???
All of that done by Leftists against Conservatives and Republicans...
Hahahahahahah ... Nice. Are you sure you're ready for round 2?
Always..
We're going to need a REALLY good bet for 6 Nov, right?? :D
Maybe we can involve all Weigantians.. :D
Michale.....
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reid-cant-explain-why-dems-didnt-raise-taxes-when-they-had-chance_648760.html
I just LOVE it when Democrats get put on the spot.. :D
I can answer the question, though..
The reason Democrats didn't do it when they had a virtual lock on all facets of relevant government is because they were too busy shoving ObamaCare down the throats of the American people, who made it PLAINLY clear they didn't want that garbaged bill'ed as "reform"...
Why couldn't Reid just tell the truth and say that???
Michale.....
Here is what says it all...
With little record to run on, an economy mired in slow growth, and unemployment stuck above eight percent, the Obama team must face the possibility that it is unloading some of its only rhetorical ammunition without result. And after burning through $100 million of his money on campaign ads, Obama has failed to establish a lead over his rival.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/07/19/obamas-remorseless-attacks-effect/
Obama scroooed the pooch... BIG TIME...
Prepare to greet President Romney.. :D
Michale.....
I would support more transparency if, along with it, Political Intimidation would be elevated to Hate Crime status, be considered a Class B Felony and severe punishments meted out for those who commit the crime.
Yeah, but look at the jail space and court time you're talking about. Think of cops doing a big bust of OWS on some CEO's front lawn. The damage is already done, because that, in itself, is enough to dissuade some other person from contributing, just out of fear of having an OWS/cop fiasco go down on their own lawn — and having to show up at court, to testify, etc.
And look at the overload of court cases, as it stands. If a prosecutor — who has to use prosecutorial discretion, because he's on a budget — is gonna opt not to prosecute something, it's gonna be that.
Plus, there are so many DISCREET ways to intimidate. Getting your car keyed by some Code Pink headcase, who looked you up on the internet, is enough to dissuade people from making donations. I mean, who even wants to put up with crap like that?
I agree with the foundation of your hate-crime suggestion. I just don't think it's enforceable, practically speaking. Intimidation is a great thing in that you only have to do it to ONE big donor in order to spook any number of other future donors. You don't have to literally carry out lawn-protest after lawn-protest after lawn-protest to achieve the desired goal. You just have to make everybody out there think that they could be the next one to have their lawn invaded, or their car keyed, or their tires flattened, or their cat go missing.
All of that done by Leftists against Conservatives and Republicans.
Sure, Michale. And Batman is really a liberal conspiracy.
We're going to need a REALLY good bet for 6 Nov, right?? :D
Heheh ... we'll have to start brainstorming.
David,
Sure, Michale. And Batman is really a liberal conspiracy.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are out to get you..
Would you like to see all the reports of Leftist intimidation thru threats and violence??
I can post at least 50 reports of the facts..
Just say the word... :D
Michale.....
Sure, Michale. And Batman is really a liberal conspiracy.
I guess Democrats won't be using the BATMAN comparison any more, eh???
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if they did continue to use it..
People do desperate things when their political life is coming to an end..
Michale.....
David,
Conservative bloggers targets of 'SWAT-ing'
politico.com/news/stories/0612/77292.html
i.huffpost.com/gen/166472/thumbs/r-BANK-large570.jpg
Activists protest income inequality outside executives' homes
articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/11/business/la-fi-occupy-pasadena-20120411
"Now we're going to name you and shame you."
-Peggy Mears, Scumbag Protester and Terrorist
I have tons more links..
I await the anticipated "Well, those people aren't REALLY from the Left" response.. :D
Michale.....
Sure didn't take long for the Leftist MSM to start blaming the theater shooting on the Tea Party...
Someone remind me once again how the MSM is not in the bag for Democrats??? The evidence to the contrary is SO overwhelming, it's hard to remember that it's just all one big coincidence...
Michale.....
Sure didn't take long for the Leftist MSM to start blaming the theater shooting on the Tea Party...
Yeah, it can't possibly be that the extreme violence, glorified in movies, TV shows and video games, is spawning a generation of headcases, dressing up in warrior costumes and committing mass murders, just like they see in those neato-keeno movies, TV shows and video games. Nah, it must be the Tea Party.
Would you like to see all the reports of Leftist intimidation thru threats and violence???
i'll ask the folks lined up outside the local abortion clinic, i'm sure they'll be happy to tell me all about it.
all the other stuff aside, there is absolutely nothing controversial about forcing disclosure of political donations. there are more than enough state and local laws to enforce against anyone who misuses the information; that's not a reasonable counter-argument. citizens' united proponents can't have it both ways; if political donations are protected speech, then they need to be public record. if someone making a political donation is skittish about having it fully disclosed to the public, then they have no business claiming a first amendment protection on it.
all the other stuff aside, there is absolutely nothing controversial about forcing disclosure of political donations. there are more than enough state and local laws to enforce against anyone who misuses the information;
Yea, tell that to the abortion doctor who got killed..
Tell that to the family that gets terrified by protestors...
Why not force everyone to disclose their votes??
After all, if they don't want their votes made public, then they have no business voting..
It's the next logical step to the argument you are making..
Elevate the harassment and intimidation to a Federal Hate Crime. Make it easy for the victims of this Hate Crime to sue and get BIG settlements..
Then I'll support such disclosure laws...
Not before...
Hope I don't get SWAT'ed... :D Actually it's kewl.. Our local County SO team has standing orders to bring me beer if they ever respond to our house... :D
Michale.....
Michale -
Sure didn't take long for Righty politicians (not media, mind you, but an actual officeholder) to blame it all on a lack of Christianity in America, eh?
Don't worry, I'll be ripping into both in today's column.
As for the Batman thing, the argument was actually from the Right -- that because the villain is "Bane" it somehow means an attack on Romney because of "Bain"... get it? Sigh. I've heard that in the movie they actually denegrade a psuedo-OccupyWS group, but whatever....
-CW
CW: As for the Batman thing, the argument was actually from the Right -- that because the villain is "Bane" it somehow means an attack on Romney because of "Bain"
That's not a crazy assumption to make when you consider that just a few weeks ago, HBO had to recut its "Game of Thrones" episode, because a bust of George Bush's head was featured on a spike. The Hollywood Left is hardly beyond making their clever little politcal statements on film. The natural assumption would be that this "Bane" character was a political dig. That it turned out not to be the case was the exception, not the norm.
Strassel: Obama's Enemies List—Part II
First an Obama campaign website called out Romney donor Frank Vandersloot. Next the IRS moved to audit him—and so did the Labor Department.
http://online.wsj.com/article/potomac_watch.html
Yea....
Let's make donor lists public..
What could POSSIBLY go wrong...
I bet the shoe would be on the other foot if Bush had created an "Enemies List" and went after DEM donors, right???
The hypocrisy is nauseating....
Michale......
CW,
Sure didn't take long for Righty politicians (not media, mind you, but an actual officeholder) to blame it all on a lack of Christianity in America, eh?
Don't get me started on religion... You know we're both of the same mind on that...
As for the Batman thing, the argument was actually from the Right -- that because the villain is "Bane" it somehow means an attack on Romney because of "Bain"... get it? Sigh. I've heard that in the movie they actually denegrade a psuedo-OccupyWS group, but whatever..
While that's true, it was reported BEFORE that, that Dems intended to use the BATMAN movie as a metaphor for the coming election..
Remember?? Obama/Biden as the Dynamic Duo...
Wanna lay bets as to whether or not the Dems will still use it??
It's a shame. If ONLY someone in that theater had a CCW and was carrying, the whole tragedy probably would have been avoided...
Guess it's a good endorsement for carry laws...
Michale.....
Why not force everyone to disclose their votes??
voting is the direct exercise of power in a democracy, and secrecy is currently the norm. every election since 1892 has been held by secret ballot, though before that it frequently wasn't. politicians enter office to serve everyone, without the expectation of knowing everyone who voted for or against them.
free speech is a substantially different enterprise. as far as i know, the norm for those who wish to freely express their opinions is to talk to people's faces rather than whisper behind their backs.
~joshua
All I am saying is that all the reasons that make secret ballots a good idea also apply to secret donations...
You want to increase the severity of penalties for harassing, intimidating or violence against political donors, then I am all for disclosure...
If you don't, then THIS will be the norm..
Strassel: Obama's Enemies List—Part II
First an Obama campaign website called out Romney donor Frank Vandersloot. Next the IRS moved to audit him—and so did the Labor Department.
http://online.wsj.com/article/potomac_watch.html
Michale.....
"It's a shame. If ONLY someone in that theater had a CCW and was carrying, the whole tragedy probably would have been avoided..."
Actually a few people were armed.
Thank God MORE were not armed and those that were were smart enough not to use their weapons - I'd hate to think how many more innocent people would've died with another bunch of gunmen shooting around a dark, smoke filled movie theatre...
Actually a few people were armed.
Bullshit. Now you're just making shit up...
Thank God MORE were not armed and those that were were smart enough not to use their weapons - I'd hate to think how many more innocent people would've died with another bunch of gunmen shooting around a dark, smoke filled movie theatre...
You honestly believe that utter drivel, don't you??
That's scary....
Michale.....