The AP Wire reports that Republicans will filibuster the campaign finance bill as Democrats are unable to gain any support from the legislation form across the aisle:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is imploring Republican senators to allow a vote on new campaign finance disclosure requirements, warning them not to resort to political delaying tactics that would block the legislation.
Speaking in the Rose Garden on Monday, Obama said that by standing in the way of the bill, Republicans would be giving special interest groups increased sway in Washington.
“Corporate lobbyists will be able to tell members of Congress, if they don’t vote the right way, they will face an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign,” Obama said. “And all too often, no one will actually know who’s behind those ads.”
The bill would impose new donor and contribution disclosure requirements on nearly all organizations that air political ads independently of candidates or the political parties. The legislation would require the sponsor of the ad to appear in it and take responsibility for it. Obama argued that the bill would also reduce foreign influence over American elections.
“You’d think that making these reforms would be a matter of common sense, particularly since they primarily involve just making sure that folks who are financing these ads are disclosed, so that the American people can make up their own minds,” Obama said. “Nobody is saying you can’t run the ads; just make sure the people know who in fact is behind financing the ads.”
The House narrowly passed a similar bill last month. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wants to begin debate on the bill Tuesday, but he faces Republican delaying tactics.
…
Democrats need at least one Republican to support the measure in order to get the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP procedural delays, but their chances of doing so are slim.
So far, not one Senate Republican has swung behind the measure, which is strongly opposed by the party’s leadership. Nor is it clear that all 59 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents will support the bill.
Click here to read more.
LauraNo // Jul 27, 2010 at 1:02 pm
This needed a headline? Did it even need a story? Filed under “duh”. Or “doh maybe”.
dante // Jul 27, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Screw the unions, screw the NRA, have EVERYBODY disclose. If NRA members don’t want to be identified, then advertising shouldn’t come out of the general fund. Have it be a separate donation specifically for marketing/outreach, and DISCLOSE it. I’m sick and tired of corporations funneling hundreds of millions of dollars through sham 527 groups, or through the Chamber of Commerce. Would be really nice to know who ponied up that $200m that was spent attacking health care reform, wouldn’t it?
busboy33 // Jul 27, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Really? I mean, I’m not suprised, but this is going to be the GOP’s”Yeah! We stopped ‘em instead of doing anything productive!” moment?
The GOP has got one crackerjack strategic vision. It takes a true visionary to run on the “Muslim hating, Hispanic distrusting, Black antagonizing, Job Benefit blocking, Healthcare Reform repealing, Reality questioning, Hyper-Conservative, Census fearing, Revolution calling, Wall Street favoring, Big buisness Party. I certainly would never have thought of it.
Good job guys. Nice to see you all rallying around the important issues of our day.
drdredel // Jul 27, 2010 at 9:07 pm
They’re also actively planning to vote as a bloc against hugs for sick children.
At this point, I’m starting to feel like I’m living in an alternate reality or a twilight zone episode. I’m curious if one of the die hard GOP defenders who post here frequently would like to explain what possible public good can come from protecting the privacy of corporations that wish to run ads for politicians. I’m genuinely curious.
WillyP? Sinz? Fairy Hardcastle? you guys wanna give this a crack? Or is this where you guys finally give an inch and acknowledge that maybe the party of your choice really has gone off the deep end?
torourke // Jul 28, 2010 at 7:00 am
It’s amusing to see how thoroughly lefty trolls have come to dominate Frum’s comments sections. The DISCLOSE Act is a monstrosity that is designed to muzzle the political speech of groups that tend to favor Republicans (unless you are an incredibly powerful interest group like the NRA) while leaving the union-dominated groups that run ads attacking Republicans and defending Democrats untouched. Free speech for me but not for thee.
Obama and Democrats have also been dipping their toes into the xenophobia pool by falsely claiming that this bill will reduce the influence of foreign companies and countries on our elections. Foreign companies and countries are already prohibited from spending money to influence our elections and the Citizens v. United decision did nothing to alter that.
Hey drdredel and busyboy33, since you two–like the other liberals–apparently don’t think much of the First Amendment, why don’t you start agitating for a second round of Alien and Sedition Acts when the DISCLOSE Act ultimately fails?
And Dante, would you like to know who financed the millions of dollars of ads spent in support of Obamacare–I mean in addition to Big Labor, George Soros, AHIP, Pharma, etc.–or were you just under the impression that the big money influence was out there opposing Obamacare?
forgetn // Jul 28, 2010 at 10:08 am
Torourke:
Thanks for calling us leftist loons, we really appreciate. Actually, the light of day will clean all; the fact that the 527 groups can hide their intention is reprehensible.
If the UAW wants to advertise for a specific candidate I want to know that it is the UAW that takes that position, and not a 527 “America Freedom” secrete grouping. It therefore behooves the republican to make sure that all are treated equal. Just saying no is not acceptable
medinnus // Jul 28, 2010 at 10:29 am
@dante – Right Frigging On. Everyone disclose which pols (Left or Right) they buy…err… support. No wonder the GOP is blocking it en masse – its hypocritically protecting the Democrat’s money-masters while exposing the GOP’s. Lets go for total disclosure; I can’t think of any harm that comes from it, except to the politicians’ warchests.
There’s too much of that as it is.
busboy33 // Jul 28, 2010 at 10:43 am
@torourke:
Its a “monstrosity? Really? Not just “I don’t like it” . . . but an actual abomination, a crime against God and Man?
I’m not quite as pee-myself terrified as you appear to be. Are you sure you just don’t disagree on policy issues? You’re sure this is the most horrendous crime against sanity since Pol Pot? Gotta say, you sound a little hysterical.
Come to think of it, you always sound hysterical . About everything.
busboy33 // Jul 28, 2010 at 11:13 am
@drdredel:
“I’m curious if one of the die hard GOP defenders who post here frequently would like to explain what possible public good can come from protecting the privacy of corporations that wish to run ads for politicians. I’m genuinely curious.”
Agreed. I mean, I understand as a sitting-around-BSing point of discussion that coorporations are people too, and privacy rocks. But that’s so threatened that leaving in loopholes than endanger the entire system of representative government is safer? This is worth drawing a line in the sand? Doesn’t have quite the same kick like “defending marriage” or “protecting grandma”. “Saving unlimited secret funding of political campaigns by special interests” just seems like a poor choice, artistically and thematically speaking.
dante // Jul 28, 2010 at 1:07 pm
torourke
Did it? Or did the justices completely avoid that aspect? What makes a company foreign, anyway? BP gets more revenue from the US than any other source, are they now a US company? What about companies that have a majority of American stockholders, are they a US company? Or conversely, what about US companies with a majority of stockholders (owners) overseas? If Chinese citizens were able to buy a 51% stake in MSFT (and elect their own board members), would *that* be a domestic or foreign company?
How *anyone* could be against full disclosure (FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE) is beyond me. The GOP is making a huge mistake here, and you can bet that they’ve only ensured that this bill is going to come up repeatedly throughout Sept and Oct and the Democrats pound this issue over, and over, and over again.
torourke // Jul 28, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Forgetn,
I called them trolls, not loons. You actually make a reasonable point, but of course the bill was written behind closed doors, without any input from Republicans, without a conference report, and then rammed through the House on a mostly party-line vote. Having been blocked out of the bill-shaping process, blocking the bill was the only tactic the Republicans had left. So the Democratic Party went after groups that tend to favor Republicans while leaving their own untouched (save for the incredibly powerful NRA that even Democrats dare not cross). In the months leading up to midterms, they were trying to tilt the playing field in favor of union-dominated groups spending without restraint while large corporations had to play by their rules. The fact that various groups were able to win carve outs shows how cynical the entire gambit was. Free speech for everyone, not just those who fund Democrats. Disclosure for everyone, not just for those who fund Republicans.
torourke // Jul 28, 2010 at 3:58 pm
busboy 33,
“Gotta say, you sound a little hysterical.”
Really? This from the guy who wrote:
“The GOP has got one crackerjack strategic vision. It takes a true visionary to run on the “Muslim hating, Hispanic distrusting, Black antagonizing, Job Benefit blocking, Healthcare Reform repealing, Reality questioning, Hyper-Conservative, Census fearing, Revolution calling, Wall Street favoring, Big buisness Party. I certainly would never have thought of it.”
You have nothing constructive to say about the issue at hand, and then issue a wild rant about Republicans that has absolutely nothing to do with this post, and then accuse me of hysteria? That takes some chutzpah.
“Come to think of it, you always sound hysterical . About everything.”
Um, given that this is the first time I have posted on this site for months, I really doubt you are going to be able to back up that assertion. But by all means, do try to back it up. Otherwise, go troll somewhere else.
torourke // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Dante,
“Did it? Or did the justices completely avoid that aspect? What makes a company foreign, anyway? BP gets more revenue from the US than any other source, are they now a US company?”
No, is this a serious question?
“What about companies that have a majority of American stockholders, are they a US company?”
Yes.
“Or conversely, what about US companies with a majority of stockholders (owners) overseas? If Chinese citizens were able to buy a 51% stake in MSFT (and elect their own board members), would *that* be a domestic or foreign company?”
Well, my understanding is that if a company is majority owned by Chinese investors, then it is a Chinese company, and it will be prohibited from spending on American elections, as it has been for quite some time.
“How *anyone* could be against full disclosure (FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE) is beyond me. The GOP is making a huge mistake here, and you can bet that they’ve only ensured that this bill is going to come up repeatedly throughout Sept and Oct and the Democrats pound this issue over, and over, and over again.”
Because the disclosure requirements were rigged to benefit Democratic causes and candidates. Again, the very fact that large and powerful interest groups were able to buy their way out of the regulations suggest that they found those regulations onerous, and that smaller interests would then have to labor under those regulations that the NRA were able to buy off. So the NRA and the Sierra Club would be able to spend without disclosing anything, while smaller entities would not. I could just as easily turn this question around. Why do you and other supporting this bill think there should be a two-tiered system of political speech that allows behemoths like the NRA to purchase their way out of regulations they find burdensome?
busboy33 // Jul 28, 2010 at 7:31 pm
@tourouke:
Yep. Your first time here.
But I’ve listened to the same nonsense from your dozen-odd clones already here. Y’all got different handlres, but sound the same. As far as I know, you’re JeninCT, or Oskar’s new tag.
You might be new here, but we’ve all met.
mickster99 // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:02 am
If the Republicans are smart they should just filibuster everything. I mean everything. Calls to a quorum – filibuster, August recess – filbuster, Kagan nomination – filibustter. Presidential appointments, whatever. They only need to filibuster 24/7 until after the November 2010 elections. And then they will be in control. Then they can eliminate and and all taxes on corporations, capital gains or any kind of capital taxes and the so-called rich. This country was in existence for many decades without the debilitating effect of taxes. I know they will eliminate all government regulations especially on the oil and coal industry. They have suffered enough under onerous regulations. I mean our Founding Fathers would have given us the power of taxation if they wanted it in the original Constitution but they didn’t. So lets loose taxes and just let the bleeding heart liberals get over it.