President Obama urged Republican members of the Senate to cross party lines and vote in favor of H.R. 5175, titled: Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE Act). Obama warned lawmakers that shadow groups are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections.
The DISCLOSE Act, was proposed to combat the January, 2010, Supreme Court decision in favor of Citizen United. Citizens United, made a documentary that was critical of then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Citizens United attempted to distribute the movie on a, video-on-demand service. The Federal Election Commission felt the movie by the group was too much like a political ad, and should be regulated as such.The issue was that the McCain-Feingold law bans corporate money being used for electioneering.
The 5-4 decision by the high court overturned the Federal Election Commission action, and ruled in favor of the right of individuals or groups, to form a corporation, for the purpose of producing any form of media on political personalities or issues.
"The government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion.
What will the DISCLOSE Act legislation do?
1. The DISCLOSE Act would require the head of the organization, or corporation to appear on camera and endorse the ad.
2. The names of all the top donors must appear on the television screen, and the majority contributor must actually appear on camera to endorse the message.
3. Companies with as little as 20% foreign ownership will be not be permitted to contribute to any advertising, or media production of a political nature. This will ban companies like: Anheuser-Busch, Michelin Tires, Verizon, and Chrysler. However, a union with foreign ties would not fall under this restriction.
Clearly, the bill is designed to limit the new found freedom corporation have gained from the Supreme Court decision. Democrats know that few corporations will risk profit by being tied to a political issue, and many businesses fear government backlash if they speak out against a political issue, as in the case with Humana, when it sent a mailer out critical of the health care bill.
Americans United For Change, a progressive-liberal organization has produced television commercials in favor of the health care bill, and videos critical of Republicans candidates in past elections.
Americans United For Change is heavily funded by the unions, and yet no disclosure of a union donation is ever made on any of the commercials. Neither has any Democratic member of congress stood up against this practice, until corporations won equal footing with unions, and organizations that favor Democratic causes and candidates.
Atlantic City area update: Rep. Frank LoBiondo voted No on the bill.
Comments
"However, a union with foreign ties would not fall under this restriction."
Duh, like that is the *only* advantage the Unions gain from this.
Let it be said clearly: This Law, if passed, will have motions everywhere in Federal Courts for Injunctions gainst enforcement of this Law. I think this is highly likely to succeed, since the manner in which this law is being enacted (taking effect immediately -- without proper time for proper judicial review) and the blatent discriminations in this Law (clearly favoring the Unions and the Democratic Party) demand that the courst restore the status quo ante, even if only temporarily until this matter can be decided in proper court proceedings.
Expect that at least one Federal Judge will Grant such an Injunction, and that other Judges, knowing they will look like fools if they do not agree to stop such a blatent power grab by the Democrats, will follow their lead. Some won't, and the matters will be sent to the Appeals Courts.
So, those who don't vote to block cloture are going to be either looking at it as trying to appease the Democrats, or are fools to think that this Law will stand at all!
This is a fair piece of reporting up to the bottom line where "corporations won equal footing with unions, and organizations that favor Democratic causes and candidates". Nuf said? Well, I will add, NOT! The numbers not only aren't there, they aren't in the ball park or other playing field. I may be having my cake and eating it too, but I do think that some compromise could work out on the percentage of foreign involvement of unions. In fact, if they are treated equally on issues 1 & 2, why not 3? There may be valid reasons for the difference, but I won't got there.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!