The new round of speech regulations promoted under the title "DISCLOSE ACT" has passed the House and is now before the U.S. Senate. Senators Charles Schumer, Russ Feingold and Patrick Leahy claim the DISCLOSE ACT is necessary to counter the influence of "special interests" on the election process:
We are part of a group of senators fighting to rein in the increased influence of special interest money this decision will unleash and save our electoral process.
To combat the new, unregulated corporate influence over elections, we just unveiled the DISCLOSE Act -- because Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections.
But without your support, our legislation is never going to win the day -- we need to build support all around the country, and we need your help to do it.
As President Obama has said, the Supreme Court has given "a green light to a new stampede of special interest money."
But this decision doesn't just affect elections. It has the potential to change the very way we live in America.
This new set of speech regulations has drawn a fair deal of criticism--even in Nancy Pelosi's hometown. Via the San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/28/EDMI1E66PS.DTL
Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR5175, also known as the Disclose Act, by a 219-206 vote. "Disclose," you see, is an acronym for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections."
The measure's author, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., also happens to chair the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - so you know that the bill has nothing to do with helping Democrats retain their seats. (Just kidding.)
Two Republicans voted for the measure, 36 Democrats voted against it. The bill now goes to the Senate, where it deserves to molder. This bill may have passed largely unnoticed, but if the Senate passes HR5175 as is, with its provision to activate the law in 30 days - conveniently in time for November's midterm elections but before the Federal Election Commission would have a chance to draft careful rules - voters should see this as a blatant attempt to rig the system...
"We don't really think the intent of the bill is to withstand scrutiny in the courts," said Jeff Patch of the Center for Competitive Politics.
No lie. Here's a more honest acronym for Disclose: Democrats Intend to Stifle Contrary Leanings with Selective Enforcement.
What do you think of the DISCLOSE ACT? Please share your thoughts BELOW...
an "end around"effort.
We don't want it!!!
Thank you, Alan Marek
Louie Rousseau
and by the way the Disclosure Act should be killed in the Senate. If not, then it should be repealed when the Republicans get back in power (IF EVER).
We must take back control of the Congress and take puppets like Hank Johnson and other Democrats out of Obama's hands.
We need to get the anti-constitution folks out of Washington DC.
Save our country for our children and grandchildren.
If this law was needed, it should be examined, however, this administration has been the most secretive and non communicative in modern history. Why would they want to expose any information that they them selves will not even comment on?
Methinks this is another McCain/Finegold trap.
Lastly, start keeping lists of the folks how vote for this 1930's suppression of truth
we have the right to know both sides of an argument not just the side the damn dems want you to hear.
This just another way for them to show disrespect to the U.S. citizens.
to stay in power.
"WE" need to know who he supports.
----------------------
In 2008, Soros donated $5,000,000,000 to the Democratic National Committee, DNC, to insure Obama's win and wins for many other Alinsky trained Radical Rules Anti-American Socialist. George has been contributing a $ billion plus to the DNC since Clinton came on the scene.
We might even have a leftist in the woodpile.
BUT WE NEED TO STOP BECAUSE IT WILL TAKE LONG TIME TO GET IT TO SURRIME C