GOP blocks Senate campaign-finance bill - USA Today

[JohnWxy]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/09/senate-campaign-finance/1

For the second time in recent months, Republicans today blocked the Senate from taking up a bill that would require disclosure of groups funding political ads.

The 59-39 vote was one short of the number needed to advance the bill, which is supported by President Obama and passed the House in June.

Republicans first stopped Democrats from taking up the Senate bill in July, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., today derided the second attempt to move the bill as "pure politics" ahead of November's midterm elections for Congress.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who authored the Senate bill, argued the legislation was needed to bring transparency to political spending following a Supreme Court decision in January that allowed unlimited corporate and union spending on independent political ads.

(more)

[FiveGoodMen]

1. ...with a little help from some DINOs.

A D by the name is not enough.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

2. Excuse me but....

...how is it Repos are able to block the repeal of DADT, campaign-finance, etc. when Dems are in the majority? Would this be the case if Repugs were in the majority? It would not.

Somebody 'up there' better put on their big people underoos and start dealing with it. We've got the knuckle-dragging, neanderthal, bully party, and the pantywaist, pink-tutu ninny party. Too bad there's little to nothing in-between - like - some adults for instance.

[Tutankhamun]

3. Unlimited, anonymous campaign finance for corporations.

Of course, we the people will speak out against corporations' ability to secretly spend unlimited cash to buy elections. They will call us conspiracy theorists.

(Edited immediately after posting in order to remove most of the post. I'm expanding it and giving it its own thread.)

[Puzzler]

4. The GOP talking-point against the bill...

... that is being repeated by the RW comment-writers/trolls is that, the trade unions would be exempt from this disclosure.

This sounds like total BS. Anyone know the degree (if any) of actual truth to this?