Posted on 06/24/2010 7:26:58 PM PDT by opentalk
In March, the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision struck down campaign finance limits on political expression by individuals working through corporations and unions as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. A cry ensued among liberal Democrats predicting doom if they and their special interest allies were required to follow the Constitution. Big Labor's bosses promised to spend millions to protect the Democratic majority if it would speedily pass legislation to circumvent the decision (and thus the Constitution), but restore limits on their corporate foes.
The resulting DISCLOSE Act, according to its backers, will ensure transparency in campaign ad funding. Thursday, the House of Representatives approved the bill 219-206, with 36 Democrats and 170 Republicans in opposition to the measure, which was written by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democrat who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this year, and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who led the Senate Democrats’ campaign panel in 2008.
The bill is full of draconian restrictions on individual political speech expressed via corporations, but gives privileged status to the Democrats' union masters. A provision pushed by Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Bob Brady, for example, allows unions to transfer unlimited funds among affiliated groups to pay for political ads with no disclosure whatever. That makes campaign funding more transparent?
Then there's the ban on advocacy for or against a candidate by any company that received Troubled Asset Relief Program funds. That silences General Motors' white-collar workers, but not the United Auto Workers union, which, oh by the way, got, among other things, $6.5 billion in preferred GM stock, paying a government-guaranteed 9 percent cash dividend. Could the fact the UAW gave more than $2 million to Democrats in 2008 explain why Democratic leaders pushed a proposal that so blatantly favors the union?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
The big disappointment on this is the NRA, using the 1st amendment as a bargaining chip to protect the 2nd. That’s outrageous. Have they lost their minds?
It amazes me how Democrats think that the way around the Supreme Court declaring a law to be unconstitutional is to trump their decision by re-passing the same law.
Not the same reaction over the oil spill. He is very Anti-America
Or when a court throws out their illegal drilling ban and they just reassert the same thing. They have used courts over and over to subvert the will of the people, but on the rare occasions when they can't get the ruling they want, they just ignore it.
“It ain’t over ‘til the fat dhimmicrat sings”
Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar
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.