Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50

Thread: DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

  1. #21
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

    And why again should private contributors be forced to make their contributions public?
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,774

    Re: DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    And why again should private contributors be forced to make their contributions public?

    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?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,416
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    And why again should private contributors be forced to make their contributions public?
    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.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  4. #24
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    "Republicans are evil and hate transparency."
    It ain't limited to Republicans, but mostly along these lines.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #25
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    And why again should private contributors be forced to make their contributions public?
    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.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #26
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,040

    Re: DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

  7. #27
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    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.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #28
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,040

    Re: DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

  9. #29
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    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.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    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.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •