Republicans Filibuster DISCLOSE Act So Wealthy Donors Won't Get Their Feelings Hurt
|
|
|||||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
|
4 votes
|
|
22% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
6% | |||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
17% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
11% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
6% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
39% | |||
Republicans used to oppose regulations on campaign contributions by saying all we needed was more disclosure so people would know who contributed to who, and could make their own judgements.
Now, when Democrats introduce a DISCLOSE Act to do just that, Republicans filibuster. Natch.
How to explain the latest of flip-flops? The Washington Post quotes Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has given a series of speeches defending political giving as free speech, said the bill was an attempt by Democrats, who have realized they can’t “shut up their critics” to “go after the microphone instead, by trying to scare off the funders.”
“As a result of this legislation, advocacy groups ranging from the NAACP to the Sierra Club to the Chamber of Commerce — all of whom already disclose their donors to the IRS — would now be forced to subject their members to public intimidation and harassment,” he said.
In other words, if wealthy donors had to make their political support in public, the public might say mean things about them.
(And something tells me these folks are not worried about being caught giving to the NAACP and the Sierra Club.)
I didn't realize that having one's feelings get hurt was inappropriate in a democracy. Let's fully solve the problem then.
Why should candidates for public office be known by name? Let's just have "Candidate A" square off against "Candidate B." That way no reporters can ask embarrassing questions, no bloggers can say snarky things about them, and no voters need face them in a town hall.
Sure, that might mean we all have no idea what it is we're actually voting for. But the important thing is: our elected officials can manage our democracy without any of that awful and hurtful public feedback.
Read More: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012072917/rep...
Top Opinion
-
ETpro 2012/07/18 00:35:06I am fed up with ALL these blankety-blank politicians and the interests that ...
Now along with their assumed leader are going to hide as much from the public/voters as is possible before we all get to the actually election.
Also anything the Democrats like, the Republicans will oppose. If the Dems said they liked Mother's Day, Republicans would attempt to discredit it in some way.
If it were up to me, I would say let anyone give how ever much they wish - no clubs, no super paks, no unions , no interest groups, no bundlers etc. and allow DNC, RNC or other designated political parties to give some set amount to their candidate in any actual race - maybe 20 million or any number as long as it is the same for each registered party. See I don't care if Bill Maher gives a million or Soros gives 150 million or the Las Vegas guy gives 10 million - it is their money . Each candidate would be required to give their list of donors to the Feds every month and no release of donors until after an election. All anonymous donations would go to the national debt, all donors that could not be verified by address and phone number would go to the national debt (random checks on lists of donors - non-verifyable donors would cause an investigation of all lists) Just cut the crapola - both major parties have huge donors - time to just be honest and cut down on the silliness.
Unfortunately, there will always be cheating but let's try to get most of it out in the open. Give what they want to give; just own it .