Senate Kills DISCLOSE Act

[Governor Scott]

The Senate has failed to advance legislation that would require independent groups to disclose the names of contributors who give more than $10,000 for use in political campaigns.

The measure, known as the DISCLOSE Act, died in a 51 to 44 vote on a procedural motion. It needed 60 votes to move forward.

Its failure was widely expected, but Democrats pushed for the vote, believing that Republicans will be politically damaged by their opposition to bringing new transparency to campaigns. The vote could also serve to energize the Democratic base, which has been exercised over the role they believe secret corporate donations are playing in the campaign.

To press the point, bill sponsor Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), will lead Senate Democrats in a “midnight vigil” Monday night, with floor speeches scheduled into the early morning. The goal is to hammer Republicans for blocking the bill and push for another vote on the measure Tuesday.

The Washington Post

I'll admit the bill isn't perfect, especially since it supposedly lets public sector unions fly under the radar screen (no, I do not support exempting unions from campaign finance laws), but I'm disappointed.

[greenforest32]

The measure, known as the DISCLOSE Act, died in a 51 to 44 vote on a procedural motion. It needed 60 votes to move forward.

Senate Republicans killed it via the filibuster

[Vosem]

Honestly, I do kind of like the idea, but if there's one thing I believe on it is a very, very strong right to privacy -- that is, not only do you have the right to spend money however you like, you have the right to do so without the government knowing.

The measure, known as the DISCLOSE Act, died in a 51 to 44 vote on a procedural motion. It needed 60 votes to move forward.

Senate Republicans killed it via the filibuster

While the whole point is moot (the House would've killed it if it passed), surely you don't believe in changes this big being passed in the Senate with just 51 votes? Keep in mind Republicans, who you are ideologically opposed to, are essentially certain to take the Senate either this year (if Romney wins) or in 2014 (if Obama wins). Do you want similarly big legislation passed by the GOP with 51 votes?

Usage of the filibuster can be crazy but this, I would say, is legitimate. (I've noted before that while I support down-sizing the threshold for killing a filibuster from 60 votes to just 55, I do not support doing away with the filibuster entirely. Did you know before 1977 it actually took 67 votes to kill it, not 60?).

[greenforest32]

My point was in annoyance to the filibuster giving Republican obstructionists cover via 'Senate kills this/that Democratic bill' when in reality it's the filibustering Republican minority that killed it. It's not bipartisan opposition.

As for big changes with 51 votes, that's fine. It's not like we're talking about amending the constitution with a simple majority.

The filibuster should have been killed by Democrats when they had the chance as Republicans benefit from it far more considering their dogmatism, just as with gerrymandering. It'd be nice if they did kill it though I don't think they will if there's a Democratic president but I could be wrong about that.

[Zioneer]

From what I understand, Harry Reid (who brought up the DISCLOSE Act in the Senate in the first place) voted against it just so he could bring it up again later in some weird Senate loophole. So while this would be great, it's literally just a political stunt.

[Governor Scott]

Honestly, I do kind of like the idea, but if there's one thing I believe on it is a very, very strong right to privacy -- that is, not only do you have the right to spend money however you like, you have the right to do so without the government knowing.

In my opinion, the right of the people to know which corporations their government works for is a bit more important than the right of billionaires to control everything behind the curtain.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If it truly did exempt public sector unions for the most part, then Republicans can use that as a shield to justify voting no ahead of the elections in November.


It should be passed with application to all such entities, with no exceptions.

[Torie]

If it truly did exempt public sector unions for the most part, then Republicans can use that as a shield to justify voting no ahead of the elections in November.


It should be passed with application to all such entities, with no exceptions.

Of course! 

[Zioneer]

I haven't seen anything for union exemptions, so the Republicans don't really have a leg to stand on with this issue.

[Simfan34]

If it truly did exempt public sector unions for the most part, then Republicans can use that as a shield to justify voting no ahead of the elections in November.


It should be passed with application to all such entities, with no exceptions.

Of course! 

Absolutely.

[asexual trans victimologist]

If it truly did exempt public sector unions for the most part, then Republicans can use that as a shield to justify voting no ahead of the elections in November.


It should be passed with application to all such entities, with no exceptions.

Of course! 

Absolutely.

Definitely, though like PioneerProgress I haven't myself seen anything about this.

[Governor Scott]

This article claims that the bill excludes unions.  If that's true, then the bill itself definitely has some things that need to be worked out.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From what I understand, Harry Reid (who brought up the DISCLOSE Act in the Senate in the first place) voted against it just so he could bring it up again later in some weird Senate loophole. So while this would be great, it's literally just a political stunt.

The first time I saw that done was in 2006 when Bill Frist put forward a bill that combined a minimum wage hike, repeal of the estate tax and some sort of pension reform bill. It got 56 votes or so and Frist changed his vote to Nay at the last minute so he could "bring it up again". He never did.

[Former Moderate]

Please post no more than 3-4 paragraphs when you're quoting an article, otherwise I have to edit and infract. *_*