talk the talk: block the walk: Senate GOP filibusters DISCLOSE Act again It's not a bipartisan problem folx - Centrism doesn't solve this. Also, Anthony Kennedy, are you out there brah?
Let me go ahead and get this out the way... Why won't Obama release his college undergrad transcripts? Ok, now carry on.
I would like someone to post a real and sincere reason for blocking campaign finance disclosure. The constitution does not guarantee you ANONYMOUS free speech. The appearance (and only sensible conclusion) we're left with? GOP stands for Grand Old Pocketed, as in they are purely owned by the huge-monied interests like the Kochs, et alia (and literally now, "et alia" could be all sorts of people, international or otherwise, since there's no required disclosure.)
What's the big deal about making unions disclose donors as well? Thought the cnn.com article I read on this claimed that was why the R were saying no (and the reason McCain cited despite his pet project being campaign finance).
Republicans are blocking campaign finance disclosures for the same reason that Mitt Romney is hiding his tax information.
That's just not true and is sloppy reporting. The bill applies to 501(c)(4)'s whether they are union backed or not, as it's where the anonymous donation loophole is exploited e. It's like saying "well the bill doesn't also legalize mar1juana, so I have to filibuster it (it passed the house) so I can't vote for it since I"m in favor of legal mar1juana" It's part of an overall false equivalency campaign to pretend like union $$ has more influence than it actually does. It doesn't. And it's not the problem.
More than 70% of superpac contributions are in sums of %500k How do libertarians and conscientious conservatives defend this?
Interesting that they are on the opposite side of Scalia on this. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...cnn-interview-piers-morgan.php?ref=fpnewsfeed “No, I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech the better,” the justice said. “That’s what the First Amendment is all about. So long as the people know where the speech is coming from. … You can’t separate speech from the money that facilitates the speech. It’s utterly impossible. Could you tell newspaper publishers you could only spend so much money in the publication of the newspapers?” “I think, as I think the framers thought, that the more speech the better. Now, you are entitled to know where the speech is coming from. You know, information as to who contributed what. That’s something else.”
i guess a lot either don't know, or simply ignore it. a lot of times i would have to think people just don't care as long as a pet social issue is important to them etc.
