Senate Kills DISCLOSE Act
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:21:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Senate Kills DISCLOSE Act
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Senate Kills DISCLOSE Act  (Read 1178 times)
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 16, 2012, 06:37:11 PM »
« edited: July 19, 2012, 10:02:08 AM by Mr. Moderate »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2012, 10:17:10 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senate Republicans killed it via the filibuster
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2012, 10:27:09 PM »

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2012, 10:38:59 PM »
« Edited: July 16, 2012, 10:40:35 PM by 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.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2012, 11:33:48 PM »

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
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2012, 11:34:59 PM »

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
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2012, 09:03:55 AM »

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
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2012, 09:34:21 AM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2012, 11:39:01 AM »

I haven't seen anything for union exemptions, so the Republicans don't really have a leg to stand on with this issue.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2012, 12:32:15 PM »

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
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2012, 01:47:19 PM »

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
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2012, 07:20:53 PM »

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
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2012, 06:57:18 AM »

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
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« 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]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 12 queries.