• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Senate Democrats on Monday lost another attempt to pass legislation forcing donors of groups that bankroll most election ads to be revealed. But Democrats, led by New York Sen. Charles Schumer, pledged to hold the Senate floor hostage and continue the debate well into the night.
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The DISLCOSE Act, which was dealt the same fate in the Senate in 2010, failed to overcome a key procedural vote on entirely partisan lines, 51-44. Democrats will push for another vote as early as Tuesday after holding a “midnight vigil” to protest the GOP filibuster of the measure.[/FONT]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was the only Democrat to vote “no” — a procedural move allowing him to bring it up again. Four Republicans and one Democrat did not vote on the bill, which would require unions, nonprofits and corporate interest groups that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to disclose donors who give $10,000 or more.

The new, stripped down version of the bill sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) no longer required sponsors of electioneering ads to have a disclaimer at the end and pushed the effective date to 2013. A discharge petition in the House to bring up the DISCLOSE act was also filed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) last week.

The push for the act comes as Democrats are lagging behind Republicans in fundraising. Critics of the bill argued that bringing up the measure was merely a political ploy.

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]​
Click to expand...
[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Yea! **** transparency! We dont wanna show you who is buying your elections!? [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Thoughts?[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Comments?[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Response? [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Read more: [/FONT]DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate - Tarini Parti - POLITICO.com


​
 
What can you say? It's disgusting. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.
 
Most unfortunate. But something also tells me there are a good number of those Democrats who are secretly glad it didn't pass as well.
 
Sarcogito said:
Most unfortunate. But something also tells me there are a good number of those Democrats who are secretly glad it didn't pass as well.
Click to expand...

True...but it still was along party lines that speaks volumes about the dirty deals that are going on with big pac donors...
 
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...
 
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...
Click to expand...

Ah pete you couldnt be more right...but unfortunately its not only the McConnells its the Harry Reids as well
 
lpast said:
Ah pete you couldnt be more right...but unfortunately its not only the McConnells its the Harry Reids as well
Click to expand...

I know, but in this case it is the McConnells who voted it down and applaud the Citzens United ruling.
 
PeteEU said:
I know, but in this case it is the McConnells who voted it down and applaud the Citzens United ruling.
Click to expand...


I know...the GOP hails the partisan supreme court for upholding exactly what they wanted...the ability to keep all their dirty backdoor deals secret and their super rich individual and corporate donors....then they whine over the obamacare ruling...somehow I cant find any tears for them
 
I wonder if the timing of the Disclosure bill had anything to do with the recent Barclay of London banking scandle involving many high profile Romney and Republican campaign donors?

:shock: Bejeeeezus, $75,000 a plate just to have dinner with Romney????....

Robert Diamond, Disgraced Barclays Banker, Pulls Out Of Romney Fundraiser

How can citizens compete with that? In numbers, which translates into votes.....

"...As of the end of April, 43 percent of the donors who contributed to the Obama campaign gave $200 or less, generating a total of $88.5 million, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan Washington research group. By contrast, only 10 percent of those who gave to former governor Mitt Romney’s campaign had made donations of $200 or less, accounting for $9.8 million....read"
President Obama winning battle for small donors - Boston.com
 
TheDemSocialist said:
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Yea! **** transparency! We dont wanna show you who is buying your elections!? [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Thoughts?[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Comments?[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Response? [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Read more: [/FONT]DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate - Tarini Parti - POLITICO.com


[/LEFT]
Click to expand...

Republocrats in general don't want transparency. We should have it, we should know the corporations behind our government; but this is business as usual. Talk talk talk, and nothing for the People.
 
And then they're all going to go on tv and bash Obama for not being transparent enough for their liking, lol. Another day in DC.
 
Ikari said:
Republocrats in general don't want transparency. We should have it, we should know the corporations behind our government; but this is business as usual. Talk talk talk, and nothing for the People.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with party, neither of the majors actually want transparency. It was one of Obama's major campaign lies, his broken promise and one that disappointed me the most.
 
Are you implying that Democraps and Repugnantcans could have agreed behind closed doors to let this legislation fail?

Shocking, just shocking.

Ikari said:
That is exactly as I said.
Click to expand...
 
roughdraft274 said:
And then they're all going to go on tv and bash Obama for not being transparent enough for their liking, lol.
Click to expand...

... while defending Romney's refusal to disclose more than two tax returns....
 
So, a bill failed in the Democratically dominated Senate?

Let's blame those evil Republicans.
 
digsbe said:
So, a bill failed in the Democratically dominated Senate?

Let's blame those evil Republicans.
Click to expand...

Why would we blame Republicans? Because the majority of Republcans voted Nay and the majority of Democrats voted Yea?

Yep.
 
AdamT said:
Why would we blame Republicans? Because the majority of Republcans voted Nay and the majority of Democrats voted Yea?

Yep.
Click to expand...

Did you ever look into their reasoning behind their votes? Or did you just take this to mean that "Republicans are evil and hate transparency."
 
And why again should private contributors be forced to make their contributions public?
 
Republic Now! said:
And why again should private contributors be forced to make their contributions public?
Click to expand...


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?
 
Republic Now! said:
And why again should private contributors be forced to make their contributions public?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Republic Now! said:
And why again should private contributors be forced to make their contributions public?
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom