Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 02, 2014, 01:27:02 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: True Federalist, Former Moderate, Badger)
| | |-+  Senate Kills DISCLOSE Act
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Senate Kills DISCLOSE Act  (Read 733 times)
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18805
United States
View Profile
« on: July 16, 2012, 06:37:11 pm »
Ignore

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2012, 10:02:08 am by Mr. Moderate »Logged
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2560


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2012, 10:17:10 pm »
Ignore

Quote
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
Logged
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5279
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2012, 10:27:09 pm »
Ignore

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.

Quote
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?).
Logged

I apologize for being so adamantly right.
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2560


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2012, 10:38:59 pm »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 10:40:35 pm by greenforest32 »Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3857
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2012, 11:33:48 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18805
United States
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2012, 11:34:59 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29684
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2012, 09:03:55 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27329
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2012, 09:34:21 am »
Ignore

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! 
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3857
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2012, 11:39:01 am »
Ignore

I haven't seen anything for union exemptions, so the Republicans don't really have a leg to stand on with this issue.
Logged
Governor Varavour
Simfan34
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10636


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: 5.91

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2012, 12:32:15 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12554


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2012, 01:47:19 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18805
United States
View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2012, 07:20:53 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29684
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2012, 06:57:18 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Former Moderate
Mr. Moderate
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13208
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2012, 10:35:37 am »

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

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines