Democrats selling the First Amendment through the DISCLOSE Act in Campaign Bill

[vector7]

Democrats selling pieces of the First Amendment through the DISCLOSE Act in their Campaign Finance Bill

leave a comment »



Democrats don't want the truth to get out!

Democrats have decided that they are more powerful than the Supreme Court of the United States and are attempting to silence their opponents. Basically Democrats have passed a bill that allows certain groups full rights to their first amendment rights and limits their political opponents. Of course, their beloved Unions, and other big donors to the Democratic Party are exempt from this bill.
Politico reports:

The DISCLOSE — Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Election — Act will require corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly declare their role in TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign, including where the money is coming from to pay for such activities. Foreign-controlled corporations and big government contractors would also be barred from paying for such political activities.

But the House bill exempts the National Rifle Association, unions and other special interests from all or part of the legislation, which Republicans charged was the product of “backroom deals” and Democrats said was necessary to get the bill passed. Floor debate over the bill was heated, with each side accusing the other of acting in bad faith and using the fight to advance its own partisan agenda.

This, of course, will be overturned by the Supreme Court should it pass the Senate. Democrats cannot pass a bill that grants certain groups rights while silencing the rights of others due to them being political opponents. Democrats want to silence “Big Business” because they usually donate to Republicans while exempting Unions because they always donate to Democrats. So Democrats exempt Unions from disclosing the truth.

A Democratic amendment tucked into campaign finance legislation Wednesday night also drew fire from Republicans and their allies, who contend it gives special treatment to Democrat-allied labor unions. The language in question would exempt from disclosure requirements transfers of cash from dues-funded groups to their affiliates to pay for certain election ads. It was inserted into the bill by Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Administration Committee and a big union backer.

A Democratic amendment ‘tucked’ inside legislation should be of no shock to the politically savy. Democrats have been doing this with all their bills of late. Just another way to reward those who helped Obama get to the White House.

Just the latest example of Democrats attacking free speech and attempting to silence their opposition. They have openly attacked Americans speaking out against an ever-growing government hell-bent on transforming America. They have openly attacked the press who point out their lies and corruption. They have openly called for government control of the internet. They want to ‘reinvent’ journalism.

And now this.

Democrats are selling first amendment rights to unions and other special interests while attempting to squelch free speech rights of their opponents. The proof is in their actions.

[vector7]

House passes campaign finance bill

Tags:

• Chris Van Hollen,
• Chamber Of Commerce,
• National Rifle Association,
• AFL-CIO,
• Bob Brady,
• DISCLOSE Act

By KENNETH P. VOGEL & JOHN BRESNAHAN | 6/24/10 12:38 PM EDT
Updated: 6/25/10 7:04 AM EDT

Overcoming opposition from within their own ranks, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic House leaders pushed through a controversial campaign finance reform bill Thursday on a 219-206 vote.

The DISCLOSE — Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Election — Act will require corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly declare their role in TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign, including where the money is coming from to pay for such activities. Foreign-controlled corporations and big government contractors would also be barred from paying for such political activities.

But the House bill exempts the National Rifle Association, unions and other special interests from all or part of the legislation, which Republicans charged was the product of “backroom deals” and Democrats said was necessary to get the bill passed. Floor debate over the bill was heated, with each side accusing the other of acting in bad faith and using the fight to advance its own partisan agenda.

GOP leaders said the legislation would be declared unconstitutional by the federal courts if it is enacted. But the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate before that could happen.

The bill is intended to blunt the impact of January’s Supreme Court ruling overturning laws that had barred corporations and unions from airing certain types of election ads. Democrats feared the ruling would pave the way for vast corporate-funded ad campaigns attacking them in the critical 2010 midterm elections, and Republicans have blasted the DISCLOSE Act as a Democratic effort to silence opponents.

Though Democratic leaders have prioritized this legislation, sponsored by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen, they found themselves facing a tricky calculation in rustling up the votes for it.

They believed the bill would not pass without support from more conservative Democrats fearful of being targeted by the NRA. So they exempted the group, amending the bill to eliminate disclosure requirements for organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations.

House Democratic sources say the goal was to exempt a handful of the biggest and most well-established advocacy groups, but it turned out that only the NRA met all the criteria. And some liberal Democrats balked at supporting a bill seen as giving special treatment to the gun group, even after the loophole was expanded to exempt smaller groups such as the left-leaning Sierra Club and the ecumenical Humane Society and AARP — all of which say they did not seek the loophole treatment.

But the NRA exemption has attracted widespread criticism of the DISCLOSE Act from both the political right and the political left. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) slammed the NRA for negotiating with Democrats for a carve-out.

“Now the NRA are the big defenders of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, the right to bear arms,” Boehner said on the House floor. “But yet, they think it’s all right to throw everybody else under the table so they can get a special deal, while requiring everyone else to comply with all the rules outlined in this bill, and frankly, I think it’s disappointing.”

Democrats, though, countered that the GOP was simply defending Big Business in opposing the measure, at the expense of average Americans. Under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, corporations, labor unions and advocacy groups can now spend unlimited amounts opposing or backing individual candidates. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens of other trade groups have come out in strong opposition to the measure.

“It’s because Republicans favor Big Business, and Big Business favors Republicans,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said in explaining GOP efforts to defeat the bill.

A Democratic amendment tucked into campaign finance legislation Wednesday night also drew fire from Republicans and their allies, who contend it gives special treatment to Democrat-allied labor unions. The language in question would exempt from disclosure requirements transfers of cash from dues-funded groups to their affiliates to pay for certain election ads. It was inserted into the bill by Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Administration Committee and a big union backer.

Though unions sought the change because they thought an earlier version of the bill would have forced them to disclose granular information about nonpolitical functions, Brady spokesman Kyle Anderson said the change “applies to all membership, dues-based organizations.” And he blasted efforts to cast it as a union sweetheart deal, as “just another attempt by Republicans to grasp at technical straws because they can’t find a valid argument against the legislation that the American people will support.”

The Chamber’s top lobbyist, Bruce Josten, said the change was “a carve-out designed to even further butter the breads of labor unions and squelch free speech.”

The first attempt to bring the bill to the floor last week was derailed after moderate Blue Dog Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus rebelled. But Van Hollen worked to overcome the concerns of those Democratic factions, and Pelosi felt comfortable enough to bring the measure up again, despite continued grumbling over the bill from inside party ranks.

“Voters have a right to know when they see an ad going on with a nice-sounding name — the Fund for a Better America — they have a right to know who is paying for it,” said Van Hollen.

But Republicans derided the effort. “There was an auction in the House behind closed doors,” said California Rep. Dan Lungren. “Certain groups won the auction. Others did not.”

[vector7]

RINO Mike Castle Votes for DISCLOSE Act: Christine O'Donnell Would Not Vote for DISCLOSE

Contributed by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook (Reporter)

Friday, June 25, 2010 1:30

View: Reporter's biography | More stories This story has been viewed 16 times

(16 times in the past 24 hours, 11 times in the past hour)
2 people on this page right now

RINO Congressman Mike Castle (R-DE) voted for the House DISCLOSE Act. Castle just took away portions of your free speech and mine. He is challenged by a true conservative, Christine O'Donnell in the November election. Don't forget this face. With our help, she will be Delaware's U.S. Senate replacement for Joe Biden.

Christine O'Donnell for Senate in Delaware

The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections), otherwise known as H.R. 5175 passed the House yesterday with help from two Republicans, Delaware's Mike Castle and Louisiana's Joseph Cao. DISCLOSE will be put into effect within 30 days - even before the FEC can write the guidelines. Democrats see this imperative to stifling our free speech - and especially the free speech of grassroots organizations, for example...TEA Parties, and here's another example:

Remember the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court which restored First Amendment rights to corporations, saying the government has no right to regulate free speech?

The DISCLOSE Act, if implemented, is seen as a first step to an end run against that Supreme Court decision. Listen to a CATO Institute podcast about this important issue here.

Read more about DISCLOSE here, and in November don't forget that Castle and Cao took a swipe at your free speech, and smack them right back with a vote for Christine O'Donnell for Joe Biden's senate seat. Find in-depth insight into RINO Castle and Ms. O'Donnell at The Other McCain.




Read the original story at Maggie's Notebook

[vector7]

Disclosure Act: Another Example of Unconstitutional Obamaism

Publius Forum on 06.25.10 at 12:36 PM | no comments

-By Warner Todd Huston On June 24 the House of Representatives passed by a bare minimum number of votes the DISCLOSURE Act, a law that is supposed to be a new effort to get around the recent US Supreme Court decision that struck down parts of Congress' campaign finance law. Bare minimum or no there is no doubt that this new law is an unconstitutional mess that unfairly limits the free political speech of some Americans while giving an unfair advantage to unions and certain lobbyists -- lobbyists including the National Rifle Association and Big Labor groups such as the AFL-CIO and the SEIU.

The DISCLOSURE Act (full name, Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act) was passed through the House by a 219 to 206 vote with only two Republicans voting in favor and 36 Democrats voting against. The two Republicans that voted in favor were Mike Castle of Delaware and Joseph Cao of Louisiana.

So what is this law supposed to do? For one thing the law would require "special interest group officials to physically appear at the end of campaign ads they sponsor, acknowledging their campaign contributions." It would also require that advocacy groups detail on their public websites every campaign they've donated to.

But, as it turns out, Democrats excluded some of the biggest spenders on political ads and campaigns in the country, most of them their patrons. In a manager's amendment the Democrats excluded any organization that has over 1 million members. That leaves Big Labor free and clear of these new disclosure rules. It also leaves the National Rifle Association free of the new requirements.

And this is precisely what makes the whole thing unconstitutional. It is true that Congress has made rules requiring disclosure of campaign donations and it is also true that the courts have declared it constitutional. But those laws were all levied equally on everyone. The laws affect everyone that donates a certain amount of money and higher, for instance. This law treats some donations as necessary of disclosure while affording other donations the luxury of secrecy.

The Constitution of the United States has always been conceived as one that affects everyone equally. But if the courts let this law stand, then we will be solidifying into law the concept that Congress can make laws that discriminate against some Americans while giving other Americans more freedom. This is a dangerous precedent to set.

One thing is sure, disclosure of campaign donations have been used by advocacy groups for opposition research. California's recent pro-traditional marriage vote, for instance saw disclosure of donors put into the hands of groups that used the lists to track down and personally attack individual donors. In California such donor lists left folks that donated to protect traditional marriage for religious reasons open to personal attacks by gay advocacy groups.

The fact is that disclosure can go too far and have unintended consequences and this should also be taken into consideration and be weighed for effect.

For his part Republican Leader John Boehner is already denouncing the law.

With this misguided bill, Democrats would restrict free speech and violate the First Amendment. But not for everyone.

This bill would muzzle small businesses but protect labor unions.
It allows the Humane Society to speak freely, but not the Farm Bureau.
It would protect the AARP's rights, but not 60-Plus.
And lastly it would protect the National Rifle Association but not the National Right to Life.
The NRA is carved out and gets a special deal in this bill.
The NRA is all about protecting the Second Amendment, but apparently its leaders don't care about protecting the First Amendment.
That's very disappointing.

This is a potentially dangerous piece of legislation, but it isn't law yet.

The U.S. Senate has to pass it and then the president has t sign it.

There is still time to defeat this unconstitutional favoritism for Big Labor and other Democrat constituencies (and the NRA, curiously enough -- politics does make strange bedfellows at times).

[vector7]

Assault on the First Amendment: The House Passes the DISCLOSE Act

On Thursday, the House approved the DISCLOSE Act, a bill designed to block organizations from engaging in political debate before the upcoming elections by requiring them to comply with cumbersome

Washington, Jun 25 - On Thursday, the House approved the DISCLOSE Act, a bill designed to block organizations from engaging in political debate before the upcoming elections by requiring them to comply with cumbersome, costly disclosure requirements and restrictions.

After the U.S. Supreme Court decided in January to block government attempts to restrict political speech, Democrats launched a stealth mission to block organizations from publicly opposing their big-government policies.

This legislation, which was designed in secret, would silence their political opponents but unfairly exempt unions and, now, huge advocacy organizations in an attempt to secure enough votes to pass this flawed legislation before November.

As this legislation is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and a give away for special interest groups, Congressman Miller opposed this sham of a bill.