Posted on 06/24/2010 1:46:50 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
The House just passed the DISCLOSE Act, by a vote of 219-206. As with so much in this Congress, the only thing bipartisan about the bill was the opposition to it.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
Another Pelosi example of “We’ll tell you what is in it after we pass it”?????
Got to rig the game before November.
What is it? Can’t be good, because THEY are in the majority.
One more nail come November.
What the hell IS it?
We’re being distracted with the oil spill and the general. All in the plan.
Another blatantly unconstitutional POS law.
SCOTUS will strike it down and fast.
Yeah....what *is* it??
Tell us!
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said that Republicans were just trying to favor big business so that more Republicans could get elected. BP entered the conversation more that once as a the Democrats’ poster-company for a foreign controlled entity that they did not want influencing U.S. elections. In fact, an amendment was approved that would reimpose the ban on direct funding for the holders of certain holder of certain off-shore leases.
Carve-outs from the bills for unions drew particular ire. Lungren said the inequitable treatment was the result of an auction behind closed doors. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) said there was a difference between unions and corporations. Union members, he said, are transparent in who they are supporting. He said shareholders should also know who their money is being used to support or oppose in campaigns.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/454180-House_Passes_DISCLOSE_Act.php
If that is not a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments I do not knwo what is. Nice going NRA selling out your allies.
From The Hill, just a few days ago...
In full disclosure, I think the Disclose Act is a complete joke, and it is getting funnier.This legislation, as the Democratic sponsors would probably admit to you over a couple of drinks, is designed to give Democrats a better chance to win election this year and into the future.What is the Disclose Act?
According to The Hill, the Disclose Act is “the Democratic response to a January Supreme Court ruling that overturns limits on spending by corporations and unions in political campaigns. It would tighten transparency requirements associated with corporate and union contributions, including forcing the CEOs of businesses to appear in ads funded by the company.”
The Disclose Act has been shepherded through the Congress by the two guys who are most responsible for electing Democrats to the House and Senate, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.).
This bill isn’t about high constitutional principles. It isn’t about protecting the freedom of the American people. And it isn’t about creating private-sector jobs or cutting the deficit. -snip-
I believe to become law, it also has to pass the Senate.
F the NRA.
If they don’t care about the 1st Amendment, I’m not going to fund them anymore on teh 2nd Amendment. Sellouts.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/454180-House_Passes_DISCLOSE_Act.php
House Passes DISCLOSE Act
Disclosure requirements could discourage some from buying campaign ads in November elections
By John Eggerton — Broadcasting & Cable, 6/24/2010 4:11:17 PM
The House on Thursday hotly debated, then passed, the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), which could stem some of the expected new flow of political ad dollars into the mid-term elections.
The vote was 219 to 206.
The bill is a response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision last fall, which allows corporations and unions to directly fund ads supporting or opposing candidates (so-called electioneering communications).
It would require enhanced disclosures for those expenditures, including having the CEO’s of companies appear in TV and radio ads to take responsibility for them. It would also reimpose the ban on direct funding for corporations with at least $10 million in government contracts or for companies with at least 20% foreign ownership, and only 5% if owned by a foreign nation or their representatives or wealth funds.
Opponents of the bill have argued that the additional disclosures could add up to 15 seconds or more, which would take 15-second spots out of the equation entirely, and threaten 30-second spots. Bill backers have pointed out that the bill includes a hardship exemption if it was impossible to convey the substance of the ad along with the disclosures.
What debate there was brought out strong words on both sides, particularly after the House rules committee set aside only an hour for debate on the base bill. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) pointed out that the rules committee had given a total of 41 hours to debate about the naming of post offices, but that the DISCLOSE Act, whose contents were not
It’s got to be opposed in the Senate. This would essentially kill fundraising and contributions from grassroots groups (it’s aimed at the Tea Party movement).
Stunning. I can’t believe the NRA did that. Well, I can, but I don’t want to.
Quite right. But, after the passage of Obamacare, I now understand that to be nothing more than a formality, at least until this session has expired.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.