More Lies & Corruption… Dems Exclude Unions From Their Campaign Finance Bill
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, June 26, 2010, 7:53 PM
After several backroom deals and bribes, Nancy Pelosi was able to ram the democrat’s campaign finance bill through the US House this week. It excludes unions.
Mark Levin weighed in on the dem’s latest controversial piece of legislation.
Via FOX Nation:
Of course, this is not surprising. We’re getting used to these slimy tactics by the Pelosi-Reid democrats.
The Politico reported:
Overcoming opposition from within their own ranks, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic House leaders pushed through a controversial campaign finance reform bill Thursday on a 219-206 vote.
The DISCLOSE — Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Election — Act will require corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly declare their role in TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign, including where the money is coming from to pay for such activities. Foreign-controlled corporations and big government contractors would also be barred from paying for such political activities.
But the House bill exempts the National Rifle Association, unions and other special interests from all or part of the legislation, which Republicans charged was the product of “backroom deals” and Democrats said was necessary to get the bill passed. Floor debate over the bill was heated, with each side accusing the other of acting in bad faith and using the fight to advance its own partisan agenda.
GOP leaders said the legislation would be declared unconstitutional by the federal courts if it is enacted. But the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate before that could happen.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Busted!… Obama Headlined a DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Event in 1996 **FLIER**
Published May 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm - 89 Comments
Militant Conservative commented:
heard about this a week ago on Tom Greshams gun talk podcast. this is poisoin and the start of the armed insurrection should it pass. This is the muzzle that Hitler put upon his people to get what he wanted.. I do not say this lightly. Obama is the next false messiah that leads us to war. Are ya’ll ready cuz here it comes. powder is dry. 3% ready.
bitterclinger commented:
This news is what’s going to make me write a letter to the NRA and ask for my year’s membership dues back. This is slimy, slimy, slimy. Zero prob’ly figures he’s got enough lefty goons on his side in the Supreme Court that even if this is challenged, they’ll say it’s A-OK.
jim m commented:
While I expect slimy liberal interest groups to sell out my freedoms I do not expect it of the NRA. But then again, the Illinois branch of the NRA has been selling out the citizens of that state for years so I suppose I should not be surprised that the national organization should do the same.
down with dems commented:
The left claims to be concerned with fairness and equality, but in every action proves itself to be just a bunch of dirty liars.
programmer commented:
The DISCLOSE — Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Election — Act will require corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly declare their role in TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign, including where the money is coming from to pay for such activities. Foreign-controlled corporations and big government contractors would also be barred from paying for such political activities.
Errrr…, guys, this seems like a good idea. I for one would have liked to know where all the money for the Obama campaign came from in the last few months of the last election, and I sure as the dickens don’t want foreign companies pouring money into our elections, do you. Or am I missing something???
jim m commented:
A good idea? Stop dropping the acid NOW before you hurt yourself.
The act allows unions to transfer money to their surrogates in unlimited amounts with no “Disclosure” what so ever. Furthermore while it allows the unions unlimited speech and money laundering ability, it forbids the employees of companies receiving government contracts or bailouts from saying anything.
So if you are a concerned citizen who happens to work for a company that has a government contract or that has been part of the TARP program or other programs your freedom of speech just ended. Period. No speech for you. Shut up and pay your taxes, slave.
Only an idiot thinks his is a good idea. My only consolation is that this is likely to be crushed by the SCOTUS if it ever gets signed.
programmer commented:
@Jim M,
Thanks for the well tempered response. You’ve certainly convinced me.
jim m commented:
Sorry I hurt your sensibilities.
The fact remains that this bill carves out freedom of speech for unions and other special interests and eliminates it for people like you and me.
Furthermore as it’s 1984ish name should lead us to suspect it does not actually increase disclosure of who is funding campaigns and their advertising but actually exempts those same unions and special interest groups. Campaign finance would become more opaque and more corrupt with this act.
Is there any doubt that the aim is to suppress the speech activities of private citizens when the dems are on the house floor saying that without this act they will lose the election? When they are claiming that the GOP will be hurt by this bill and THAT is a reason to vote for it I think we can take hem at their word. This does not make our government more accessible to the people but rather insulates incumbents from them, which of course is the intent.
mark commented:
We are supposed to be a nation of equal rights for all. These laws Dems seek to pass are not equal but are simply bribes and kickbacks. They are unconstitutional. Vote the bums out. They are unfit to lead this nation.
DocScience commented:
Democrats are proving every day that NONE of them can be trusted with power.
None.
wanumba commented:
The article deliberately stacks the NRA FIRST and doesn’t mention ONE Liberal union or organization. Thats’ the ONLY name we’re treated to so we all react negatively against the NRA, while boatloads of Liberal LEft partisan organizations scoot thru un-named, laughing as the NRA takes flack.
Fed up with the CONSTANT manipulation of the Left media.
Opus #6 commented:
Gosh, when will they STOP!
Mike W commented:
The CBC was all POed that the NAACP was not given the same exclusion as the NRA and threatened to vote against it. I see Piglosi must have cut them a sizable deal for their votes.
Freddy commented:
This story has the same peopaganda as most everything that shows up on Politico.
Notice, that the crack team of writers first claim “… Act will require corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly declare their role …”
And then a couple of paragraphs later they revise their lie by mentioning “… exempts the National Rifle Association, unions and other special interests… ”
This is exactly why Politico should always be scrutinized heavily before thinking there are ANY facts behind their ‘stories’.
Also note that there is no possibility that the Democrats would do ANYTHING to prevent the California PUBLIC labor unions from plowing hundreds of millions into this election cycle.
kansas commented:
Corporations need to reorganize as unions. Problem solved.
Sandy from Chesterfield commented:
This is from the NRA’s website stating what they would be forced to do if they were not exempt from the Disclose Act:
The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members’ right to privacy and freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.
The introduced version of the bill would also have prohibited political speech by all federal government contractors. The NRA has contracts to provide critical firearm training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The bill would have forced us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refused to let this Congress force us to make that choice.
We told Congress we opposed the bill. Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House. If it doesn’t, we will strongly oppose the bill.
Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn’t happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law.
You decide if they were right accepting the exemption.
Aussie commented:
@#5 yes you are missing something.
I suggest that you read what Justice Thomas had to say on the subject of disclosure.
My understanding is that this would not allow you to see who was donating to a campaign via the odious PAC system. Rather the disclosure only relates to political advertising.
In Australia the political parties run ads that will state: spoken by:……… authorized by…. but they do not disclose who paid for the ads. Although most of the time one knows because it might be the Nurses union, or the doctors or the teachers union etc.
What you actually need is the protection of private citizens who donate to a campaign… e.g. those who donated to the prop 8 campaign in Ca had their names disclosed.
On the other hand you need to know who is making the extremely large donations e.g. George Soros, BP, Goldman Sachs.
JPL17 commented:
Seems like a more transparent name for the so-called DISCLOSE Act would be:
“Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Election — Except For Unions” .
Which of course would be referred to by its acronym:
“DISCLOSE — EF U”.
Eden commented:
They set this up around Christmas time with a middle of the night law passed that said the unions didn’t have to disclose to the members how they spent the dues.
infinite commented:
I cannot wait until the Dems are thrown out and proceedings to jail each and every one of them begins.
Starting with Obama.
Bill Fabrizio commented:
The tyranny of the democrats in Congress seems to know no bounds. Each day they shamelessly attack the constitution and our liberties. On issue after issue the dems defy the wishes of the majority of Americans. What the hell are they thinking or perhaps drinking?
I sure hope lobotomies are covered under the new health care bill because practically every democrat in Congress requires one.
Melvin Winter commented:
Members of Congress Move to Reverse Their Listing as an Invasive Species http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/06/members-of-congress-move-to-reverse.html
aprilnovember811 commented:
I see, they get to decide who gets free speech, and who doesn’t? I don’t think so. It’s time to just stop listening to these unconstitutional laws. If they pass anything like this, just ignore it. We outnumber them.
Wallace commented:
DISCLOSE — Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Election — Act
I think the acronym DISCLOSE means Democratic Incumbents Saved by Corrupt Law on Spending in Election
Mr. King commented:
Perhaps we should start asking questions about the big picture…
Do we need a Referendum For A New Democracy?
Are you concerned about the future of democracy? Do you feel democracy is under attack by extreme greed in countries around the world? Are you sick and tired of: living in fear, corporate greed, growing police state, government for the rich, working more but having less?
Can we use both elections and random selection (in the way we select government officials) to rid democracy of undue influence by extreme wealth and wealth-dominated mass media campaigns?
The world’s first democracy (Athenian democracy, 600 B.C.) used both elections and random selection. Even Aristotle (the co-founder of Western thought) promoted the use random selection as the best way to protect democracy. The idea of randomly selecting (after screening) juries remains from Athenian democracy, but not randomly selecting (after screening) government officials. Why is it used only for individual justice and not also for social justice? Who wins from that? …the extremely wealthy?
What is the best way to combine elections and random selection to protect democracy in today’s world? Can we use elections as the way to screen candidates, and random selection as the way to do the final selection? Who wins from that? …the people?