E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The procedural vote on the DISCLOSE Act failed to get the 60 votes needed to bring the bill to the floor. The vote was 57-41.
The bill would have required groups to disclose who paid for their campaign commercials.
The moderate republicans Majority Leader Harry Reid sought support from (Collins, Snowe, and Scott Brown) had all previously indicated they would vote against bringing it to the floor.
(Sen. Joe Lieberman did not vote. He is out of town at a funeral, so the best Democrats could have mustered was 58 votes. Reid also voted against it, because, according to the rules of the Senate, only someone who is on the losing side of a measure can bring it back up.)
The Senate now returns to the small-business jobs bill.
Leave a Comment:
As usual the Party of NO has to protect their multi-millionnaire donors and corporations from exposure. Nothing new here!
Yes the Party of NO to Obama's BS agenda!!! Absolutely!
Well Tracy1973---I guess you took time out from your seven figure position to hang out here......I suppose you are representing the corporate position if not the Teabaggers.
Thats your position, stick with it!
Seven figure salary? I wish!! BTW I am representing to position of the MAJORITY, because in case you have been under a rock, November is going to be a slaughter of the Dems in BOTH houses. BTW the only thing keeping Obama in office is the fact the he is obligated, unfortunately, to serve four years.
Tell me Tracy... what do YOU get from the "NO" vote?
Less debt piled on my children. And you?
Disclosing who paid for a campaign ad or commercial piles debt on your children exactly how? Your position is only a "talking point", nothing more!
chilled
THANK YOU, tracy is only listioning to what she heres from the media. she does not realise that full disclosure mean that corporations like BP (who has screwed us royal) can pay for commercials for a candidate and at the end of the commercial when the candidate tell you who paid for it as we have come use to, does not have to let the viewers know that Bp the company that screwed up our waters, lied about how much oil was gushing out, paid for that commercial. tracy this has nothen to do with the debt, Obama, democrats or republicans, this has to do with you knowing where the money came from to run that commerical.
GET IT !!!!!!
"Disclosing who paid for a campaign ad or commercial piles debt on your children exactly how?"
It doesn't. It does, however require PRIVATE political groups to disclose who paid for their political ads. This is just more government Big Brother sticking it's big nose into the lives of American citizens....nothing more in an attempt to stifle free speech....with INCLUDES political free speech. BTW this bill was opposed by corporations AND unions like the AFL-CIO.
"The Senate bill would require most independent groups, including labor unions and corporations, to disclose the names of the top five donors whose money helped fund political ads. It also would require corporate and union executives to appear in political ads that their organizations help pay for and state that that he or she "approves this message," as candidates currently do in campaign commercials"
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/27/1749085/senate-republicans-block-campaign.html#ixzz0uvIm9YHC
"Your position is only a "talking point", nothing more!"
As far as Obama's BS agenda is concerned it's a very relevant talking point!
Tracy1973
The only thing this bill would have done would be to disclose who's trying to influence your vote. Yes their a loophole for the NRA, AARP and Unions and their shouldn't be one period. But the debt your children and mine will have inherited, unfortunately just didn't come from Obama. The problems Repubs seem to have is that Obama inherited this mess. And yes, I'm blaming Bush, Clinton and especially Reagan for this mess. Reagan racked up more debt than anyone in history and sold weapons to the Iranians to boot. GHWB george Sr., had Reagan pegged w/ that Voodoo economics statement. George Sr. was railroaded because he saw the debt that had been generated on the country's credit card and had to raise taxes. His downfall. Clinton gave NAFTA everything and allowed for Big Business to ship our jobs overseas and oevr both borders. And the lil shrub and Darth Cheney. Unpaid for wars, unpaid for Medicare expansion, tax cuts to help the richest of the rich shall we go?
Obama is stuck inbetween a rock and a hard place. His base wants and needs him to do more and his enemies are simply saying NO to everything whether it helps the American people or not. He needed a larger Stimulist, would never have gotten it because of the Repubs, needed a Public Option or something to make the Insurance industry compete for your hard earned dollars. Financial reform to keeps the banks in check. Everyone wants to Blame Dodd and Franks for this bill and Fannie & Freddie. Its a compromise bill people. All of the safeguard of course are stricken because both sides still need except for Dodd, their Wall Street contributors to their coffers. Obama cannot win in this enviroment, no could.
But the issue is Transparency, and this is just something that 41 Repubs simply don't want.
"The only thing this bill would have done would be to disclose who's trying to influence your vote."
I would agree with this bill if it didn't attempt to FORCE private political groups to disclose something that is absolutely none of anyone's business except the group who paid for the ads. Financial disclosure involving free political speech is something that public officials running for public office should be required to do, NOT privately funded political groups. This is not like the FDA requiring food manufacturers to put nutrition and ingredients on the label. This, as I said before, is the Big Brother/ Big Government, trying to tamp down political free speech in order to make themselves less of a political target.
"And yes, I'm blaming Bush, Clinton and especially Reagan for this mess."
And nothing about Obama making this mess worse?
"Reagan racked up more debt than anyone in history"
Obama has him beat.
"He needed a larger Stimulist"
Spoken like a true Keynesian economic theory believer. You have my pitty.
"But the issue is Transparency, and this is just something that 41 Repubs simply don't want."
It's amazing you talk about transparency and eventhough this bill was written just before the mid-term elections in order for the Democrats to use it as a political weapon in order to keep Republicans from running political ads that target their candidates. How about some "transparancy" by the Democrats as to their reason for attempting to pass this bill now?
Just wondering if Harry Reid changed his yes vote to no so that this can be brought up again. Once again, republicans side with those with vested interests against the American citizenss voices. Seems to me that is another GOPer NO for democracy. Congressional lawmakers wonder why voters don't have much trust in them--the republican's unanimous NO vote on transparency is one reason.
Yes, that is a move the allows this to come up for vote again. If Mr. Reid left his vote as yes it would be a dead bill with no recourse.
Are we going to have our Repub bloggers state this is a victory for democracy? What the repubs are saying now is that this bill infringes on Free Speach. I find that laughable because its like they actually care about free speach unless its hurts them. Just makes you wonder why each and everyone of them would this. I was quite surprised though that Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu voted FOR this bill. Lieberman is at a funeral so I supposed theres still time to rack up another NO for the Repubs.
Just sad that so many think that transparency is such a bad thing.
Phil,
Very astute, good post. Should be interesting to see how they spin this one. I do not see how this infringes on free speech, I guess they needed something to justify this total repugnant position.
Have a great day, again nice post.
Thank you for your kind words.
I think there should be full disclosure for ALL contributors, including the unions. and, how about we really have transparency like the unions having to count "time" as a contribution when they send people out to protest like they did against Lincoln in Arkansas? If you're all gung-ho for corporations to have to reveal, why don't you ask the same for the unions?
"I think there should be full disclosure for ALL contributors, including the unions"
For ads run for and paid for by the candidate/party, not for privately funded political organizations.
so i guess elections are for sale to the highest bidder. the republicans who voted against this does not want the public to know who is paying for there commercials.
why not i must ask. i guess they want big business to pay and the Public to not know.
i though the republ;icans only wanted to vote against spending, not reform. i'm sure this will not go over well in november.
You got it Jeff. Once again a vast majority is overridden by a minority. And guess who pays in the end. We the American people as always. The republicans are becoming more bold and repugnant every day now.
i guess they don't want full disclosure, they are still wondering how Obama was able to raise soo much money in 08. they want to match him this time and the only way is to get corporation to pay and the voters not know.
Jeff-1541632
Smaller Donors won't be able to compete. Elections are now bought and sold thanks to the Supreme Court. Thank you Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and whoever the other tool was
"the republicans who voted against this does not want the public to know who is paying for there commercials."
That is NOT what this bill is attempting to do. This bill is targeting privately funded political groups NOT the financial campaign organization of the candidate.
Here we go again. Republicans just yesterday saying they are not the party of NO. Today a vote of 57 to 41 (a 15 point majority) goes down in defeat. What are they afraid of? Will we find out that the 300 Million of foreign money being spent on the next election cycle is going to them? We do not know now.
The republicans are really starting to get sickening to many. It is always about them and what they want.
A 15 vote majority goes down because the 41 majority says so.
Another bad day for the American People. And this will continue until this country ends up in the toilet. Thank your republicans one and all for your petty selfishness. I am sure George and Chenney and the tea baggers are proud of you. I on the other hand am not.
It really is sickening and I agree with everything you've said!!!!
TRR,
Thank you and you have a great balance of the day. See you tomorrow stay safe an be well.
The party of no and obstruction regardless of what the issue is. Their main aim at all times is to vote against any agenda that is supported by the Democrats. Shame on them.
I guess I now have a better feeling for the sentiment that accompanies the chant "we want our coutnry back".
This kind of thing needs to become the featured copy in a great many campaign ads this Fall.
What are the Republicans afraid of? I guess they can speak loudly but their actions speak louder. They are the party of NO and the Party of don't do as I do!
I liked the principle. But I still wouldn't have voted for it in this current state. Too many loopholes for the largest contributors.
I probably wouldn't have either, for the same reason - if you're already exempting the NRA, AARP and unions, who's next?
And I'm sure all those Republican votes against it were for that very same reason, right? So if it were re-submitted later with all the loopholes closed, they'd be all for it, right? Yeah, sure they would.
Interesting point about Harry Reid having to vote against it in order to be able to bring it up again later - and why we should never trust any political ad that claims that the opposing candidate voted for or against something without explaining why they voted the way they did. But hey, why stop oversimplified ads now, since they apparently work so well?
The loopholes put in for the NRA, AARP and some unions. Everyone should have been included so no is ever shielded. If they pay for an ad, I want to know who putting the money out there no matter which side they support.
I saw this mentioned on Newsvine earlier this afternoon. A tow boat hit a Lousiana well head in Lake Mud near the bay. Oil is spewing into the Gulf. This well head has nothing to do with the BP disaster. There was a photo--looked to me as if well heads not being used just sit there above or below the water's surface. No one knew yet how many gallons of oil were flowing into the water.
Hi Jody... This well belongs to the state of Louisiana, so we'll see if Jindal once again cries for help.
Hi Jody, saw that. President Obama is waiting on a call from LA to come and bail them out. If they, LA, own the well does that mean that Jindal is now responsible for the clean up of the oil?? Or is he gonna want his life back.?
I suspect he will try and get the govenment to pay for it.
Short of a constitutional amendment that would clarify corporations are not persons and money is not speech, this was the last best hope of stopping the bleeding.
But who knows? This may be the real republican stimulus plan. Because pretty soon, corporations will be raining money on the media without any accountability.
Do you think that FAUX is already licking its chops? I do. Even Glenn Beck may get some of THESE advertising dollars.
Do they really think that the majority of Americans are not paying attention?? A lot of Americans do not get caught up with all this spin - but they do watch local news that gives all news and this will be on.
My husband has been a LOYAL republican for over 40 years - and now he is completely fed up with the republicans in the Senate. The politicians need to work together to compromise (you know liberals the word compromise that you are upset with President Obama because you think he does too much of that).
I do not want my country back to the way it was under the Bush regime.
Elise -
Much as I'd like to agree with you, I honestly doubt the majority of American voters really are paying attention to this one. It doesn't condense well into a sound bite or a slogan, it's not inflammatory like immigration or unemployment, and it's an issue that neither side can really claim some long history of taking the higher moral ground on.
But hey, I'm glad your husband's at least paying attention - keep up the good work!
Elise, SF
Unfortunately what is being played out in Congress is political gamesmanship. Both sides do it, but the Repubs have taken to a all new high. The bill was flawed to start off w/ exclusions of the NRA, AARP and Unions. I said this before, it shouldn't matter what side you choose, if someone is trying to influence your vote, YOU the voter should have every right to know who they are and why. The politicians must believe we are not smart enough or mature enough to handle this information.
Drive-by-observer
Paid and bought by Target, Walmart and many other corporations. Our Repub friends on this site I notice are silent so far. Its just plain odd. They scream they want their country back, want transparency on everything Obama, yet continue to hide everything they do. If hyprocisy counted for money, their no way the Dems could ever catch them. Even sadder some of the Repub plants on this site rail about this bill but want transparency on everything. Whats so wrong w/ having those who pay for ads that can change someone's opinion on an issue know who putting these ads out there? In California, during the whole Prop 8 fiasco, most don't realize it was the Mormon Church who paid for some of the ads. The Catholic Church did as well but at least they proudly put their stamp on that. By hiding, it truly makes someone think, WHY?
Phil,
Nice thought out post. I agree. Should be interesting come Nov., maybe Rachael or someone will figure out who is paying the bill. Her team seems to be good at digging things like that.
Your have a good evening, talk with you in AM
Navy Disabled R A C H E L MADDOW RACHEL , R A C H E L , ONE "A" IN R A CHEL
Now that the Democrats have made a gesture to a foregone conclusion, they can take it out on Republicans by raising as much corporate cash as the system allows and seeking out as many sympathetic corporations to run ads as they want.
You know they will. It's what Obama did when he "changed his mind" on public financing. But people forget that not only did Obama set records for those "little people" donations, he also set records for corporate donations.
If there is one area of commonality between Republicans and Democrats it's that the money is green no matter where it comes from.
And if money is not speech, no donation can be used for message delivering, "little people's" money or otherwise.
Money is NOT speech, Richard. Money is content neutral. The speech is the direction given to the money. The amount of money is not substantive; it's an accident of fortune. No voice should be louder because it has more money behind it. That's not democracy. We have lost our way, Richard, and I'm sad to see someone as obviously intelligent as you are buying into this silliness. Step back and give it some thought. When the shoe really IS on the other foot, you may feel a lot differently about it.
Anna Molly:
Obviously, money is not speech in the literal sense. It is the means to purchasing all available avenues to get one's message out. If you restrict it, you restrict the ability to maximize your message.
If you didn't want Obama to have a louder voice in the last election, why did you give him money? And why was your money any different in enabling the louder voice than the corporate contributions and big money he got and combined with yours? Don't you feel tainted?
Besides wasn't this vote about disclosure? I have no problem with that. Disclose away. My opinion is simply that the Democrats really wanted it no worse than the Republicans and just trotted it through at this time for the opportunity to pretend that they are somehow better.
Yes, Anna Molly, we've lost our way and maybe I'm missing when you say that your party is as bad as the other one.
I'm just tired of your party's holier than thou posture on this issue.
By the way, if I'm pro second amendment, my contribution to the NRA makes my voice louder, too.
As does your contribution to the DNC or whatever.
Anyway, this issue, like the economy, has no resolution.
I don't know why I'm arguing it anyway. I don't watch paid political advertising.
Richard, Washington State
I ask you this, why would the NRA not want people to know who they are behind and who they are attacking? The same applies to the AARP and Unions, but ask yourself WHY?
Off topic and not to get between Richard WA and the others but.....Richard, you said the rich pay nearly 50% of their income in taxes. That 50% tax rate hasn't existed since Reagan cut it to 28%; Clinton raised it to 39.9%, Bush cut it to considerably less (escapes me for the moment but I think around 25%). Reagan raised the existing 20% capital gains tax to 28% so that capital gains earnings would be treated the same as income. Now that makes sense. Clinton cut capital gains back to 20%, Bush 43 cut it to 15% neither of which makes any sense since that's less than most Americans pay for their hard earned incomes.
Jody, the current top tax rate is 35%. All of the fuss the Repubs are making about raising taxes is over a 4% increase resulting from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
Didn't say that Jody. I said that of all taxes paid, the rich pay 50% or more. Wasn't talking about rates, just dollars paid relative to dollars collected by the government.
And Heartlight, 35 to 39 % is a 12% increase, you ignoramus.
And Jody, you're wrong about almost everything else. God, please go out and find some information! Spend some time with it and understand it.
Please?
Are you really bothering to make that argument Richard? The change in the tax rate is 4 points on the % scale. That changes the size of your tax burden 12%. So when the rate was dropped through reconciliation by the Republicans was that a twelve percent decrease, or did they sell it as only a 4% drop in their burden?
I makes me very sad to read all these posts. You guys are so quick to let the Government take away your freedoms.
The truth is: that bill gave a HUGE advantage to unions and their ability to contribute MILLIONS of dollars without any disclosure.
Look at Greece-- is that really where you want your children to be in the not so distant future. I am neither a left wing nor a right wing person--I am just a person who loves this country and sees some very scary writing on the wall for all of us, if we don't get this sprint towards socialism turned around.
Paula-2080803
You only mention Unions, I know a dirty word for Repubs, why not mention the NRA, or AARP? Is that you have some Right Wing bent against Unions? The bill was flawed because of the cut outs for the Unions, AARP and especially the NRA which was probably a Repub cut out. So if your going to complain, be inclusive, include all of them, that way you don't look like a Right Wing plant. :)
What a sad day for America. When we become a third world nation. Allowing the wealthy from other countries to influence our every day lives. Haiti will look like a vacation spot for us soon. Will we be seeking asylum in Canada? I think so. Lets hope they strip these large special interest groups like NRA and AARP from this loop hole they created and push it through again. I'm hoping they get the votes. I don't want Cuba having influence in my mayoral election or China influencing the Governors race in California. Can you imagine senators bought and paid for by Russia? A presidental candidate purchased by the European Union? No thank you! Write you senators to vote for this.
Can you imagine a US President purchased by AMERICAN unions???---Open your eyes
Much better an "American" Union purchasing a politician than any entity that is not American. I hope you agree. If not, you are a traitor to your country. Personally I prefer money limits also.
Paula
Once again, inclusive. How about a president purchase by the NRA? Oh we did have one. GWB. remember the shootings @ Virginia Tech? The first call Bush got was from the NRA about gun safety and restrictions. So, since we see where that has gotten us, what wrong w/ a Pro-Union President? Can't be any worse that the last one we had?
The dopes of nope strike again, the GOBP and their supporters are useless hand puppets for big corps, say good bye in November you turd blossoms.
One more thing - while I'm sure Ken Strickland is a great guy and a fine reporter, you can tell this wasn't written by Domenico or Mark - knowing their penchant for groaner puns, I'm sure their headline would have been " It Came DIS CLOSE to Passing!" :)
Harry needs to revise and reintroduce this bill toot-sweet. But, only after ALL of the exemptions and exclusions are removed. Period. As an American, you and I can vote, not only at the polls, but with our dollars. I want to know who is supporting whom and what. I want to know which corporations, countries and conglomerates are behind political advertisements each and every time. Transparency is not red or blue, dem or rep, it's just that, TRANSPARENT. Disclosure is meaningless if it is not complete.
So, revise the bill to be all corporations, all parties involved regardless of blue, red, conservative or liberal. Make the bill what it should have been in the first place. Then, if the right still says NO, we'll know why.
CdV
Bravo my friend Bravo!
Republicans would only lose from open disclosure, since they're on the take from every special interest that's paying them off. Not that Democrats are that clean, but the Republican followers are so dumb they won't even notice.
The bill was drafted behind closed doors with the help of left-wing lobbyist and interest groups. It was then rushed to vote, bypassing committee review. The bill gave special treatment to guess who: SEIU. How corrupt is this administration? Transparency...yea right!!!
hs321
The bill also gave special treatment to the NRA, who do you think pressured to have that cut out? I'm sure it wasn't Dianne Feinstien. You can rail all you like about Unions, don't get upset when people start to rail about the NRA or AARP who has the other exemption. The bill was flawed, PERIOD. No should have any exemptions PERIOD. The populace has a right to know who's trying to influence their opinions on matters PERIOD. Shouldn't matter if your on the Left or the Right, transparency affects both parties.
Thank God this Nazi style Disclose Act failed!! Chalk one up for the Campaign for Liberty!!!
Patrick Lee
How was this a Nazi style disclosure? The Bill is flawed, get rid of the exemptions and lets see who votes for and who doesn't. 5 will get you 10 that more Repubs still vote against than the Dems.
So happy!!!