DISCLOSE Act dead in the Senate?
The phrase most hated by Lefties in the Age of Obama is: Dead in the Senate. And it appears that the flagrantly anti-free speech DISCLOSE Act may suffer a similar fate.
From The Hill.
Despite a hard-fought victory in the House, supporters of the Democratic campaign finance bill are now confronting a more dispiriting reality: the dwindling chances the legislation will affect the fall elections.
Advocates of the Disclose Act have long pointed to July 4 as a deadline for enacting the law so that its provisions could be implemented and enforceable during the hotly-contested midterm congressional campaign. But with the Senate bogged down in fights over tax legislation, a Supreme Court nomination and energy proposals, that marker will almost surely pass without action on campaign finance. . . .
The political lift will be daunting. It requires the famously deliberative Senate to act faster than the House, typically the speedier of the two chambers. In a letter to House leaders last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and sponsoring Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) committed “to working tirelessly for Senate consideration of the House-passed bill so it can be signed by the president in time to take effect for the 2010 elections.”
Advocates say Reid wants to bypass the committee process and bring the bill directly to the floor in the hopes of quicker passage.
But the required 60 votes have yet to materialize. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) have criticized exemptions inserted to secure House passage, and key Republican swing votes, Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine), have registered their disapproval. Brown said it would be “inappropriate” to rush the legislation into law during an election season.
The Citizen’s United case held that Congress had violated corporations’ First Amendment free speech rights with the campaign finance laws. The Democrats, not content with allowing Americans to advocate against them, want to muzzle their political opponents with the DISCLOSE Act.
The bill has come under fire recently for carve-outs. In response to pressure from the NRA, House Democrats made an amendment last week to exempt organizations that have over 1 million members, have been in existence for at least a decade, and receive less than 15 percent of their funding from corporations.
House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a statement, “This bill would muzzle small businesses but protect labor unions…This is a backroom deal to shred our Constitution for raw, ugly, partisan gain.”
The Chamber of Commerce, which has been avidly opposing the legislation, said the “Democratic majority in the House has jammed through a piece of legislation that clearly violates the Constitution, as well as basic principles of fairness and equity.”
The carve-out exemption for the NRA will apply to the NRA. But by design, few, if any, corporations will be able to meet the requirements. The description of the carve-out, longstanding groups with lots of members who don’t take corporate money, is the very definition of a union. So the unions can spend their warchests for Democrats but corporations cannot spend for Republicans. More pointedly, Ford’s UAW unions can spend cash on their candidates, but Ford cannot.
The fact that we have actual American members of congress who revile free speech as much as the Democrats is alarming. There is no problem with any American, union, or corporation spending whatever they want on elections. It is a free country, unless you happen to be something other than a Democrat.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Doug Mataconis, Bill_Dupray, Michelle Dryjanski, Rhetorican, Save_America1st and others. Save_America1st said: RT @Bill_Dupray: DISCLOSE Act dead in the Senate? http://bit.ly/9SefuJ /all true Americans better hope so! #tcot #teaparty #ocra #gop [...]
The Democrats, not content with allowing Americans to advocate against them
I’m sorry but it’s ludicrous to suggest that corporations are Americans. First they’re given ersatz personhood; now you want to give them citizenship as well? Amnesty for corporations, that’s the new conservative platform, I guess.
DISCLOSE does not limit the free speech activity of any American individual. This is about limiting the nearly infinite power of corporations to purchase legislators. Predictably, conservatives – who stand as a movement for corruption and graft – are opposed.
Justin, the law has long (very long) held that corporations are “persons” under the Constitution with all manner of rights and privileges. The rationale is that they are formed by people, owned by people, and run by people, in a recognized association or group called a corporation. They can own property, they pay taxes, can files lawsuits, and can face criminal charges. This stuff is basic Law 101. Not every issue is debatable depending on your political philosophy and thinking it should be other than it is, doesn’t make it so.
Oh and you for got the unions. They get all the free speech they want while the corporations get shut out. That is craven political treachery, plain and simple
In response to another comment. See in context »The rationale is that they are formed by people, owned by people, and run by people, in a recognized association or group called a corporation.
All those people maintain their rights of free speech under DISCLOSE, which does not restrict the free speech rights of any individual whatsoever, even those who are employed by corporations.
There’s not a single American individual you can point to who would have their rights of free speech curtailed in any way by DISCLOSE. The law simply doesn’t do what you claim it does. (That’s a bit of a pattern with you.)
Oh and you for got the unions.
Unions shouldn’t have unlimited freedom to purchase legislators, either.
In response to another comment. See in context »So whether you agree that associations such as corporations or unions should have free speech, the fact that unions are exempt is the whole ballgame. That was the point of the legislation – curtail free speech and spending (in which the latter is a form of the former under SCOTUS precedent) of the “Republican” corporations and allow the “Democrat” unions to spend on their guys like drunken sailors. That is my whole gripe here. Sounds like you agree with me.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m pretty sure I don’t agree with you. And, you haven’t answered the question. Which individuals, specifically, would have their free speech rights restricted in any way by DISCLOSE?
Also, how can a corporation be “Republican”? Even here in America corporations cannot vote. Moreover, when you say:
The description of the carve-out, longstanding groups with lots of members who don’t take corporate money, is the very definition of a union.
That’s actually not the definition of a “union”. That’s the definition of a political action committee, and you present no rationale for why such organizations shouldn’t be able to lobby for legislation, given that’s their purpose.
I heard you’re a lawyer. How do you make that work when you don’t know what words mean?
In response to another comment. See in context »