DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

roughdraft274 · Jul 17, 2012

digsbe said:
So, a bill failed in the Democratically dominated Senate?

Let's blame those evil Republicans.

Come one Digs, you're better than that. This vote was stalled by a Republican filibuster. You know damn well what side blocked this. If this was put up to vote by only the democratic members this thing would pass easily, and if put up to only Republicans this thing would have failed miserably. No amount of twisting will change that. It's fine if you want to argue that the Republicans were right to not want a more transparency, but you can't argue that they aren't the ones blocking it.

Ikari · Jul 17, 2012

roughdraft274 said:
Come one Digs, you're better than that. This vote was stalled by a Republican filibuster. You know damn well what side blocked this. If this was put up to vote by only the democratic members this thing would pass easily, and if put up to only Republicans this thing would have failed miserably. No amount of twisting will change that. It's fine if you want to argue that the Republicans were right to not want a more transparency, but you can't argue that they aren't the ones blocking it.

No, we are to make this topic horrifically partisan and fill it with finger pointing to the other side only so that we do not actually have to think about what was done or by whom.

roughdraft274 · Jul 17, 2012

Ikari said:
No, we are to make this topic horrifically partisan and fill it with finger pointing to the other side only so that we do not actually have to think about what was done or by whom.

Sorry, I don't know what other issues are currently up your crawl. I'm talking specifically about what was in the original post. The disclose act was presented by Democrats, voted yes on by democrats, and filibustered by Republicans. If you'd like to start another thread about how all politicians are lame, then go for it, but it would have nothing to do with this topic.

Republic Now! · Jul 17, 2012

Somerville said:
A historically verified reality of corruption created by financial payoffs to politicians.

If we don't know who is paying the politicians we can't make a valid judgement as to the reasoning behind the pols' actions in promoting/voting for various legislation.

Since the SCOTUS has determined that "money is speech", how can you call it 'free speech' if the entity speaking is hiding behind a curtain? How are we to know if the donor is an American and not some foreign person or corporation buying preferential treatment?

Hyperbole aside, a quick look over of the bill (since no one has provided such information yet):

This is present election law
This is the bill

Old law states:

(A) expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate; and

From the new bill:

`(A) that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or is the functional equivalent of express advocacy because, when taken as a whole, it can be interpreted by a reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, taking into account whether the communication involved mentions a candidacy, a political party, or a challenger to a candidate, or takes a position on a candidate's character, qualifications, or fitness for office; and'.

Next section changes this:

(A) In general
(i) The term “electioneering communication” means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which—
(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;
(II) is made within—
(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or
(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate; and
(III) in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for an office other than President or Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.

(bolded is removed)

To include:

(II) in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for an office other than the President or Vice President, is made during the period beginning on January 1 of the calendar year in which a general or runoff election is held and ending on the date of the general or runoff election (or in the case of a special election, during the period beginning on the date on which the announcement with respect to such election is made and ending on the date of the special election);

`(III) in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for the office of President or Vice President, is made in any State during the period beginning 120 days before the first primary election, caucus, or preference election held for the selection of delegates to a national nominating convention of a political party is held in any State (or, if no such election or caucus is held in any State, the first convention or caucus of a political party which has the authority to nominate a candidate for the office of President or Vice President) and ending on the date of the general election; and'.

The final change seems to be adding a requirement for entities making campaign related disbursements to file information about said disbursement. It would seem, however, that the entities receiving this disbursements are already required to disclose their contributors, which makes it seem pointless to me.

One of the things that concerns me is the animosity of the new definitions. For example, a campaign-related contribution is defined as:

`(1) An independent expenditure consisting of a public communication.

`(2) An electioneering communication, as defined in section 304(f)(3).

`(3) A covered transfer.

Any of these would have to be disclosed, along with a description of the purpose of the contribution, any candidates mentioned, and who the communications are in favor of and oppose. This besides the source of the contribution, of course. Seems a bit obscure to me.

hazlnut · Jul 17, 2012

AdamT said:
What can you say? It's disgusting. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.

Shame is apparently not a conservative feeling.

America, We're number 1... in filibusters. Unfunded wars. Outsourcing jobs.

Republic Now! · Jul 18, 2012

What if...? said:
Simply put, consumers/voters cannot withhold their custom from "bad actors" without this information.

Corporate donations are not gifts. They are investments. Corporate officers are required by law to maximize profits for their investors. They give money to politicians expecting a return on that investment.

So? Simply because a politicians stated policy goals are advantageous to a corporation does not make such a matter of corruption.

So the public can see which corporations are donating to which candidates and use it as another tool through which they can watch and control the government.

What does that have to do with watching and controlling the government? Often the released information on public contributions are used either in protest of the contributors or as campaign tactics. The actual function of government should be what is scrutinized, not the private entities which choose to support candidates.

Ikari · Jul 18, 2012

Republic Now! said:
So? Simply because a politicians stated policy goals are advantageous to a corporation does not make such a matter of corruption.

If government is involved and is unrestrained, you can almost guarantee there is corruption. Do you know why you cannot buy cable ala carte? Why the number of cable companies in any given area is limited? You get one maybe land line cable company, one or two dish services; that's it. The death of competition and the beginning of oligarchy and price fixing was accomplished through government power after cable companies lobbied government for it.

The government is not an institution to trust, if it can abuse power it WILL abuse power. All government tends towards tyranny.

Republic Now! · Jul 18, 2012

Ikari said:
If government is involved and is unrestrained, you can almost guarantee there is corruption. Do you know why you cannot buy cable ala carte? Why the number of cable companies in any given area is limited? You get one maybe land line cable company, one or two dish services; that's it. The death of competition and the beginning of oligarchy and price fixing was accomplished through government power after cable companies lobbied government for it.

The government is not an institution to trust, if it can abuse power it WILL abuse power. All government tends towards tyranny.

Agreed, which is why minimalist government is important, especially in the economic field.

Ikari · Jul 18, 2012

Republic Now! said:
Agreed, which is why minimalist government is important, especially in the economic field.

It is certainly true. However, in today's age of the corporate state, the individual is going to need more information in order to properly make educated decision to aid in the control of the government. The disclosure of donations is a way to do this, we can see which corporations are donating to who and what legislation said individual is proposing or endorsing. Maybe if more people understood why they can't have ala carte cable, there would be more outrage at the fact that corporations lobbied and donated in order to get a government created and enforced oligarchy complete with package and price setting.

Republic Now! · Jul 18, 2012

Ikari said:
It is certainly true. However, in today's age of the corporate state, the individual is going to need more information in order to properly make educated decision to aid in the control of the government. The disclosure of donations is a way to do this, we can see which corporations are donating to who and what legislation said individual is proposing or endorsing. Maybe if more people understood why they can't have ala carte cable, there would be more outrage at the fact that corporations lobbied and donated in order to get a government created and enforced oligarchy complete with package and price setting.

Eh, I don't know. Most contributions like that are already disclosed. The only things that aren't disclosed are things like third party ads.

Ala carte cable will be reality pretty soon anyways, with the move toward online media. I personally have Netflix and Amazon Prime. Even so, if there is a show I want to see that's on cable and not available through one of my subscription based services, I can usually buy it for 2 bucks a bit after it is released on a media site. I imagine that in the near future as more and more people do as I have done, major networks will begin hosting their content independent of cable networks.

Ikari · Jul 18, 2012

Republic Now! said:
Eh, I don't know. Most contributions like that are already disclosed. The only things that aren't disclosed are things like third party ads.

Ala carte cable will be reality pretty soon anyways, with the move toward online media. I personally have Netflix and Amazon Prime. Even so, if there is a show I want to see that's on cable and not available through one of my subscription based services, I can usually buy it for 2 bucks a bit after it is released on a media site. I imagine that in the near future as more and more people do as I have done, major networks will begin hosting their content independent of cable networks.

We'll see about that. The corporate state is well opposed to free market capitalism and will do what it can to destroy it.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 18, 2012

Ikari said:
We'll see about that. The corporate state is well opposed to free market capitalism and will do what it can to destroy it.

But the corporate state came about the "free market"..

Republic Now! · Jul 18, 2012

Ikari said:
We'll see about that. The corporate state is well opposed to free market capitalism and will do what it can to destroy it.

I'm guessing you mean Crapitalism. That is probably my biggest concern, and is also why I feel laws should be universalizable.

Ikari · Jul 18, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
But the corporate state came about the "free market"..

The Corporate State came from the entanglement of the State and Corporate entity. While in free market you will oft realize the emergence of corporations, they are not given the special privilege and State endorsed protectionism that you find in the Corporate State.

apdst · Jul 19, 2012

PeteEU said:
Got to love the comment of that idiot McConnell "nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation".... no you moron, it is expose who bought you off! The sad thing is he use to be fore such legislation...

This would be a violation of our right to privacy.

clownboy · Jul 19, 2012

AdamT said:
... while defending Romney's refusal to disclose more than two tax returns....

Yet another conflation of terms from you. Obama promised government transparency (a promise he immediately broke).

Somerville · Jul 19, 2012

Here's a bit more about the problem the DISCLOSE Act was supposed to address

Current Campaign Finance Law Allows Secret Foreign Influence, GOP Senator Brushes Off Concerns

A Chinese, Russian, or Venezuelan corporation can legally influence American elections in secret, simply by setting up a corporation here, then funding a 501(c) group with some innocuous name to run attack ads. The ads could help elect lawmakers who support trade or foreign policy issues favorable to these countries, and the whole process would be perfectly legal and undisclosed under our current campaign finance system.

Yesterday, every single Republican Senator, even several lawmakers who have called for complete campaign transparency in the past, voted to filibuster the DISCLOSE Act, legislation that would force all campaign advocacy groups to disclose equally. The legislation would not limit communications, but simply force 501(c) groups to disclose the same way in which PACs and Super PACs are required. Currently, 501(c) groups — like “American Action Network” — face zero public disclosure, yet are spending hundreds of millions to influence elections this year.

Republic Now! · Jul 19, 2012

Somerville said:
Here's a bit more about the problem the DISCLOSE Act was supposed to address

I see Blunt's point; the wording of the bill is way too ambiguous. If they actually wanted to pass such a bill, they would spend time tweaking the wording to ensure it was appropriate. Instead, they're pushing the bill multiple times while left-wing organizations continue to spout on about how they're not supporting it.

Arbo · Jul 19, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
Yea! **** transparency! We dont wanna show you who is buying your elections!?

What is funny, is anyone that suggests this is something one side or the other owns. Since both sides have been pushing away legislation (or not putting forth legislation to change the status quo) to make things more transparent.

AdamT said:
What can you say? It's disgusting. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.

See, here's an example of one of those funnies.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 19, 2012

Arbo said:
What is funny, is anyone that suggests this is something one side or the other owns. Since both sides have been pushing away legislation (or not putting forth legislation to change the status quo) to make things more transparent.
.

Its just pathetic that this is a party lines issue. Transparency if fundamental to a functioning democracy.

Arbo · Jul 19, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
Its just pathetic that this is a party lines issue. Transparency if fundamental to a functioning democracy.

Agreed. It's unfortunate the two sides have done such a good job keeping people fighting so they don't see that it's both sides that stand against any real transparency.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 19, 2012

Arbo said:
Agreed. It's unfortunate the two sides have done such a good job keeping people fighting so they don't see that it's both sides that stand against any real transparency.

I mean almost all Democrats voted for this act, and i believe literally all Republicans voted against.

Arbo · Jul 19, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
I mean almost all Democrats voted for this act, and i believe literally all Republicans voted against.

This one piece of legislation. Yeah, that doesn't change the reality neither side has really worked for transparency.

Republic Now! · Jul 19, 2012

Many things are more transparent now than ever. Perhaps our woes lie somewhere besides the commercials from a third party calling Obamacare problematic.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 22, 2012

Arbo said:
This one piece of legislation. Yeah, that doesn't change the reality neither side has really worked for transparency.

These kind of legislation is rarely brought up. But with the cretion of Super PACS now around this kind of legislation is needed more than ever.

DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

Ikari

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

Republic Now!

hazlnut

Republic Now!

Ikari

Republic Now!

Ikari

Republic Now!

Ikari

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Republic Now!

Ikari

apdst

clownboy

Somerville

Republic Now!

Arbo

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Arbo

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Arbo

Republic Now!

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

ThunderCougarFalconBird

ThunderCougarFalconBird

Gradualist

Gradualist

Gradualist

Gradualist

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency