The Disclose Act H.R. 5175 passed the House in a tight vote 219 to 206. This Act would force grassroots organizations to release the name of donors and members into a publicly searchable database maintained by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). This is a blatant attack on organizations, members and donors, said Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life Legislative Director. He continued, "National Right to Life will do everything possible to keep this bill from coming out of the Senate. I think we have to take this bill very seriously. There are already 50 cosponsors of the bill in the Senate. But, as you know, the Senate has different rules, and we will certainly do our best to persuade any Senator who will listen, that this bill is unconstitutional, unprincipled and nakedly partisan."
If the Senate approves the "Disclose Act" and it should be signed into law by President Barack Obama, the Act would take effect in 30 days, even if the FEC has not yet crafted new guidelines - just in time for mid-term elections in November.
Congressman Dan Lundgren expressed outrage, that unlike every other campaign finance passed by the House, the Disclose Act has no provisions for expedited judicial review. Therefore the lack of such provision, makes it clear that the Disclose Act is meant to influence the outcome of the 2010 mid-term elections. "We have spent 40 hours in this Congress naming post offices. Why can't we spend a little time protecting the Constitution of the United States. We're talking about political speech: the essence of the First Amendment."
More will follow.
Posts
8 comments:
I don't fully understand what the problem is. If someone feels strongly enough about something to join a group and provide financial support, why do they wish to hide their identity?
Gee, maybe it's because liberals have started targeting the donors to the causes they oppose?
I didn't realise the it only applied to Republican donors! Your claim is spurious
If their cause is 'right', 'correct' or 'justified', why aren't they prepared to identify themselves?
If it's such a good bill, then why doesn't it apply to unions, or the NRA?
It actually states - 'Among the provisions are requirements that unions and corporations disclose the names of the top five donors who help pay for ads, that corporate and union executives appear personally in ads that their organizations buy, and that government contractors and TARP money recipients not be permitted to use that money for election ads.
While we generally support disclosure of information about who places ads and require it as a matter of practice, in this case the law as proposed is flawed by its exemptions.
To secure enough votes, the House exempted nonprofit groups that have existed for 10 or more years, have more than 500,000 members with some in all 50 states, and do not secure more than 15 percent of their money from corporations or unions.
In other words, the National Rifle Association, AARP, Humane Society, Sierra Club and groups such as that are exempt. Newer and smaller organizations are not.'
So while you may feel this is not fair, it is unfair across the board. It does not make a difference based on political viewpoint.
So Eric, righteous as you are, how about getting on board and posting your full name, address, phone number, and employer in this thread?
As for me, I believe that the Supreme Court will vindicate my opinion that this law infringes on the Constitution's protections of free speech.
Just not before the November election.
I haven't undertaken any active support or made any monetary donations to any organizations which lobby, pressure or undertake political action Paul.
I'm not concerned about your full name, address, phone number, and employer re this blog either.
Post a Comment