DISCLOSE Act Fails in Senate

[MindMover]

Source: Congress.org

Senate Democrats will speak all night about a failed campaign finance disclosure bill.

After the Senate rejected, 51-44, an attempt to move ahead on the DISCLOSE Act, Democrats sought to publicize the filibuster with a series of speeches, Roll Call’s Niels Lesniewski reports.

Bill sponsor Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) explained the late-night session as necessary to highlight the need for the bill. “Putting an end to secret election spending by special interests is an essential step in protecting middle class priorities. For that reason, we are committed to continuing the debate on the DISCLOSE Act late into the night and asking for a second vote tomorrow if need be,” Whitehouse said in a statement before the vote. “We can’t let the special interests off the hook after just one round.”

The legislation would require covered entities to report donations of $10,000 or more to their political activities, in a bid to provide new sunlight to the funding of third-party expenditure groups known as super PACs.

Read more: http://www.congress.org/news/disclose-act-fails-in-senate/

[JDPriestly]

1. K&R I support the Disclose Act. If you do too, please K&R.

[annabanana]

2. Better they should stay up late to make the Repubs explain why

they were filibustering.

This is all ass-backwards.

[arcane1]

4. It's like a reverse filibuster

I'm glad they're going to be doing these speeches, but damn!

A 51-44 vote is a loss. Every single senator who voted "no" should be on the receiving end of some serious ads!

[primavera]

20. Or at least make the Repukes stay up all night carrying out their threat

I can't help but wonder how often Repukes would filibuster if they actually had to carry out an actual filibuster, i.e., stand up at the podium and drone on and on for hours and hours to prevent the bill from coming to vote. Why, they might miss their nightly rendezvous with their corporate tricks and the chance to pick up the money left on their dressers!

[PSPS]

3. LOL. What a joke. 51 out of 95 votes constitutes a loss. What a country.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. Wanna bet the N/V group are hiding something?

[2on2u]

5. Well now, can we as a voting group vote that we don't have to disclose anything to

the IRS? I don't see the difference.

[RobertEarl]

6. Bunch of crooked senators?

What are they hiding? Are they ashamed? If they are not crooked and not ashamed, they should be voting to allow the people to know who is spending these vast sums of money on candidates.

This is a line that we should make clear can not be crossed any longer. The people have a right to know who is paying and essentially buying favors from our elected officials.

Each of these senators voting no are a “typical politician” and have demonstrated “systematic favoritism” toward top campaign fundraisers by lavishing them and their companies with taxpayer money and special government deals.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

7. The 51 "yeas" and 44 "nays" were strictly along partisan lines,

along partisan lines, with 1 exception: For procedural reasons, Harry Reid was the only Democrat among the nays.

And 1 Democrat (Landrieu-LA) and 4 Republicans did not vote.

See http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/2/179 :

"S.3369
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed S. 3369
A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities, and for other purposes.
Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected in the Senate by 9 votes

[justice1]

8. Thank-you Ben Nelson...as usual Johann's sold the people of Nebraska outl

[CBHagman]

9. The Senate didn't "reject it," Republicans blocked it.

Congress.org apparently can't stir its lazy bones enough to report.

From The Washington Post:

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-disclose-act-stalls-super-pac-reserves-6-million-in-ad-time-for-house-races/2012/07/16/gJQAsAUdpW_story.html[/url]

On Monday evening, Senate Republicans blocked consideration of a Democratic bill that would require those nonprofits to disclose the donors of every contribution of at least $10,000 that is used for political purposes. The DISCLOSE Act, as the proposal is known, failed on a vote of 51 to 44, falling short of the 60 votes needed to proceed to a full debate.

Feedback form for Congress.org:

[url]http://www.congress.org/contact/[/url]

[permatex]

11. This sucks

when oh when are we going to get transparency in govt.?
I know, I know, stupid question.

[rurallib]

12. I AM SO OLD I REMEMBER WHEN A MAJORITY WON IN A VOTE

wanted to make sure I was heard.

[GreenMask]

13. They actually voted??

Wow, Reid let something through. Not common these days.

[Phlem]

14. on something he had to vote "nay" on.

I think that zero's out any positive effects he actually having as a majority leader.

-p

[midnight]

15. So disappointed.... but not surprised...

[Tx4obama]

16. Statement by President Obama on the DISCLOSE Act

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 16, 2012

Statement by the President on the DISCLOSE Act

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that big corporations are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence American elections. They can buy millions of dollars’ worth of TV ads with no obligation to reveal who’s actually paying for them.

The consequences of this decision are predictable. If we allow this practice to continue, special interests will have unprecedented influence over politicians. It’s wrong. It’s corrosive to our democracy, and it’s a threat to our future.

Today, Republicans in the Senate had the chance to change it. They had the opportunity to support a bill that would prevent the worst effects of the Citizens United decision and require groups or special interests who are trying to influence elections to reveal their donors so the public will know who’s funding their political ads. This bill should have received broad, bipartisan support.

Unfortunately, Republicans chose to block it. Instead of standing up for the American people, Republicans stood with big banks and oil companies – special interests that certainly don’t need more clout in Washington.

I will continue to do everything I can to repair the deficit of trust between Washington and the American people. I’m disappointed Republicans in Congress failed to take action and hold corporations and special interests accountable to the American people.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/16/statement-president-disclose-act

[The Last Democrat]

17. Free speech my butt!

I want know who’s talking

[mojo2012]

18. Why it's important to pass the DISCLOSE ACT

Who is buying the election and who will the candidate become beholden to sometime in the future? Read one example of what money can "buy" and how far some donors will go to keep their interests protected.

Inside the Investigation of Leading Republican Money Man Sheldon Adelson
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/inside-investigation-leading-republican-money-man-sheldon-adelson

"......His family's $25 million in contributions kept Newt Gingrich in the presidential race. He has been widely reported as donating $10 million to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. A "well-placed source" recently told Forbes Magazine that Adelson's willingness to financially support Romney was "limitless."......."

Elected officials are to represent all Americans, not to the wealthy donors that the Republicans so desperately want to keep a secret from the rest of America.

[hack89]

19. ACLU position on the DISCLOSE Act

WASHINGTON – The Senate today and tomorrow will debate a campaign finance bill that includes disclosure requirements that raise significant civil liberties concerns. The American Civil Liberties Union is urging senators to vote against the bill because those disclosure requirements are overly broad and inconsistent and will likely infringe upon the free speech and privacy rights of Americans.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-urges-no-vote-disclose-act

[FiveGoodMen]

21. FOR Citizens United, AGAINST the DISCLOSE act.

This is not the ACLU that I once supported.