You would think that lawmakers of both parties would rush to support a proposed law requiring prompt public disclosure of political campaign contributions by super PACs, labor unions, corporations, environmental lobbies, the National Rifle Association and other big donors. But the 114 co-sponsors of a bill in the House of Representatives for the “Disclose 2012 Act” are all Democrats.
Both parties have come out strongly for transparency and accountability, but where are the Republicans on this bill?
The law, proposed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, would take a powerful first step in controlling the huge flow of campaign money now permitted. The 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission threw out the limits on political spending by corporations and labor unions and opened the way for the huge super PACs that dominate this year’s campaign spending.
The bill would require corporations, unions, super PACs and outside groups to report campaign spending of $10,000 or more within 24 hours. The leaders would have to stand publicly behind their campaign-related ads, including the ferocious “attack ads.” The bill would also require lobbyists to report their political expenditures.
A broader bill in 2010 lost to a Republican filibuster backed strongly by the United States Chamber of Commerce. Its president and CEO, Thomas J. Donohue, said: “It’s unconstitutional. It’s un-American. And it must be stopped.”
Maine’s two Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, joined in the 2010 filibuster, voting against a cloture move that failed by one vote. Sen. Snowe noted in an emailed statement that she is a longtime supporter of full disclosure in campaign advertising. She said the 2010 Disclose Act bill did not apply equally to labor unions and corporations and had provisions that limited free speech. She said: “I understand that some in the Senate are working on a new version of the DISCLOSE Act, and I will thoroughly review the bill when it is introduced.”
Maine’s Rep. Chellie Pingree, a Democrat, is a co-sponsor of the current bill, calling it “a major step forward on transparency.” But she also favors a constitutional amendment reversing the Citizens United decision.
Maine’s other representative, Mike Michaud, also a Democrat, has not joined in sponsoring the current bill, but he voted for the broader Disclose bill in 2010.
In the 2008 presidential election, about half of $135 million spent by outside groups went unreported, according to the the Hill’s Congress Blog, an online publication. It said that in the 2012 campaign about 40 percent of television advertising — $24 million worth — has been funded by nonprofit groups that never reveal their contributors.
American voters need to know, fully and promptly, who is behind massive political spending by both parties that the Supreme Court has permitted. The proposed Disclose 2012 Act would be a firm step in that direction.
Let them spend all the Money that they want!
The more that they talk the less people listen!
Good luck getting those traitors in Washington to do any self policing. We are in danger of losing our republic.
Senator Snowe is a little bit foolish if she believes that unions can come even close to the money that corporations can raise.
Is anyone checking the nationality of the corprate donors? Just because the corporation is listed as American, is no guarentee that those holding controlling interest in those corporations are Americans.
That may be true but as a voter who tries to be informed, I want to know regardless of who is doing the spending.
Unions besides bringing huge blocks of money provide huge blocks of mindless voters who vote the way the shop steward instructs them. NEA has raised over $300,000,00
Union contributions to Superpacs and parties are a drop in the bucket when compared to the donations made to both parties by large corporations, Wall Street firms for example. Mindless voters occaisionally get their marching orders from Hertitage think tank talking points or the incessant blather of right-wing radio. Who do you suppose funds that?
mindless voters? you must be looking in the mirror , laddie– or do you just dismiss all the business and republican super pacs billions?
Do you dismiss all the Liberal billionaires? The boy Presidents Super PAC? The difference between Wall St and Corporations is that they donate to both sides of the aisle. Unions are cash funnels to the Dems and Liberals only. When you look in the mirror do you see a producer or a liberal looter? Nobody at my place of work tells me how to vote whereas unions tell their sheeple which way to vote. Linking employment with how you vote has always been a despicable union practice.
“boy President”?
Educate yourself. This isn’t the 50’s….
childlike Have you ever met a black person?
What does me having met a black person have to do with your ignorance?
Yes, have you?
Why would unions donate to the Republicans? You don’t donate to someone’s campaign who is trying to destroy you and your right to organize.
Since voting is by secret ballot how would anyone, union or not, know how someone votes?
At least we can have a little faith that they are all Americans.
I’m also worried about money from foreign sources.
Imagine some future President Nick Dixon decides it’s a good idea to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to a foreign dictator. Then the foreign dictator decides it’s a good idea to contribute millions to President Dixon’s reelection campaign.
All in secret.
Far fetched?
Review the history of Richard Nixon and the Shah of Iran.
If I recall China contributed to Clintons Presidential campaign.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2273700
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/china1.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/background.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1366889.php/Chinese_dishwashers_waiters_donating_sizable_contributions_to_Hillary_Clinton
Your fear has been a reality for some time. 22 people connected to Bill Clinton or Al Gore were either convicted or fled the jurisdiction of the US for Chinese connected illegal campaign contributions.
What I find is that this happened before the SuperPACS were around. Whats the difference?
The difference, I believe, is that the secret nature of those donations, Rebublican or Democrat, was illegal and the Citizens United decision now makes secret donations legal and much easier for foreign money to stream into US politics.
Ummm they were secret before…..
http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-super-pac-returned-big-foreign-donation-183839325.html
Snowe is not foolish, she is a first class panderer who is always looking to have it all ways.
She does not deserve to be reelected.
The BDN is further left than the Supreme Soviet but they got this one right. No union or corporation should be allowed such influence on elections.
Who turned the Stars Upside down?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l4mJ3jLUws
This secret money is the greatest threat to our democracy. I can’t believe the Supreme Court was so naive on this one. They were probably paid off too.
Right, corporate political donations are a bigger threat than terrorism or Iran getting a nuke. Very reasonable position.
The gravest threat is Obama and the liberals who set his direction
I tend to think outside the Chamber of Horrors box called politicians.
Why would I want to turn my power over to these people by voting for them?
There has to be a better way, eh?
I always turn to the website of Maine artist Robert Shetterly when I find myself in
times of trouble and can’t find Mother Mary,
http://americanswhotellthetruth.org/pgs/portraits/Richard_Grossman.php
The Disclose 2012 Bill is, as written, perfectly Constitutional and that’s what has the GOP scared to death ! This Bill, as written, does not prohibit the collection or use of money, as The Court has so frequently said, as a means of free speech. It simply requires that ALL MONEY’S collected be publicly reported as to source and spending use, nothing more. That does not restrict free speech unless the giver has a problem with their identiy being made known. And if a giver of say $ 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS has a problem with being known, then maybe it’s time we all took a good long look at just what these sum’s of money are doing to our political process. In Wisconsin the Koch Brother’s are, and it’s almost a State-wide ‘secret’, known as the one’s who litterally bought Walker’s election thru the massive use of their money’s for poltical gain’s. That is also the current subject of a Federal Grand Jury probe right now. To date, Walker’s Press Secretary and at least 2 assistant’s have been called to testify and their is no end in sight. The Disclose 2012 Bill is aimed at making, permanently, the campaign finance process absolutely transparent. Open Govt’ thru open process is what not just The Constitution calls for. It’s what every State’s Constitution calls for as well. That the days of the political backroom deals are finally being reined in is a good thing. That there are those who oppose open process is also a good thing. Now we can see just who’s trying to hide their ego and agenda’s influence behind a mask of money. And that hiding is just what the Disclose 2012 is going to do. The Opposition to this Bill is going to make very interesting reading.
Why are unions subject to different rules than corporations?
The Bill as written makes no distinction between the type or catagory of contributor. That’s the best part of this bill in that it treats, and requires EVERYONE, to report equally. Right now the reporting requirement’s are as about as clear as the Maine woods looking for one specific tree in 10 million acres. This Bill provides the Constitutional protections for free speech, as outlined in the Citizen’s United decision, the reporting requirement’s, the meansto verify the specific source of all contribution’s and the process where everyone can see just what money is coming and going where. No where does it restrict money from being donated. All it does it identify exactly who is donating the money, by person, not a named ‘Political Action Committee’. Both Labor and Business are going to have to come outta’ the closet. And given the mess that the current SuperPAC’s are making, it’s high time. Transparency makes everyone equal. Isin’t that what the Country is all about, equality ? Or is George Orwell’s ‘1984’ alive and well ?
Hey MK,
I haven’t read the legislation but read the rules for unions are different. I stand corrected.
In your eyes; who is more guilty? The person making a bribe or the one accepting?
It is a global economy, the money can come from anywhere. Including your neighbor.
Here we have another instance of an Olympia Snowe job.
This is funny!
Chellie Pingree-$u$$man should burst into flames when she starts spouting off about dirty money in politics!
In 2010, Mr. $u$$man laundered MILLIONS to her campaign and the (theoretically) “Independent Expenditure” groups that trashed her opponent with false negative ads on TV, radio, mailers, phone-banks, robo-calls, etc.
Donald $u$$man’s secretaries, yardmen, cooks, yacht crew, jet pilots, maids, lawyers, accountants, daughters, etc. all seemed to be MAXED-OUT DONORS to Chellie Pingree.
Check out the FEC reports! It’s public information (though the Pingree-Press-Herald is unlikely to cover the story now!!!)
It’s incredible that so many low-paid employees of Mr. $u$$man, living in Connecticut, New York, Virgin Islands, etc. would gladly donate $9,600 to Chellie Pingree in Maine… but not give a nickel to any candidate in their own district.
Hmmm. Must be a coincidence because to give that person cash or a bonus, with instructions to donate money to Chellie Pingree’s campaign would be ILLEGAL.
And Mrs. Pingree-$u$$man’s grand ethics would NEVER, EVER allow that!!!
Right?????
Its good to see someone point out the duplicity of standard bearers of the left who know no boundaries
Solyndra? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? GM? Subsidies on various goods and services?
This isn’t a “two-party” system anymore, it’s just two groups of people keeping us entertained and confused while they play with our laws and money, seeing who can get and stay elected the longest.
The negative campaign ads should be banned. All of the demonizing for the past 30 years or so has split this country and caused a huge and partisan political divide. We are no longer able to sit at a table, hammer out our differences and agree on laws. Instead one party must always win at the expense of the other party. You can get a sense of it right on these pages with all of the bickering that goes on – I include myself in that along with a handful of others. It’s certainly no way to solve problems but its what we have become. Money talks and its on both sides of the aisle. Until money is removed and sensible people meet at the table, we will continue to be run by a bunch of no brain puppets bought and paid for by the wealth of this country.
Never mind the Constitution, then. I guess it’s OK to totally ignore that.
Only “both parties”? So it’s totally OK for Americans Elect to hide the sources of its funding? No double standard there at all.
Maybe we need to worry less about who’s buying our politicians and more about the fact they regard being bought as a normal part of politics?