Here we have the Dems stealing more of our liberty again and for us in West Tn, our great representative John Tanner voted Yes for the Disclose Act. See how your representative voted here.
The Disclose Act is the Democrats response to a Supreme Court decision that came down in January allowing corporations to sponsor election-related ads.
This new, and obviously unconstitutional, bill would require corporations, unions and nonprofit groups to disclose their top five donors if they participate in political activity, and to agree to other disclosures related to expenditures before elections.
The Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on the ability of Corporations to donate to political candidates was unconstitutional . And, that should end the matter.
But, now you are redressing that unconstitution law and passing your new unconstitutional version of that unconstitutional law !!!!!
When are the Democrats & Obama going to obey what the Supreme Court has laid down as the new Rule-Of-The-Land ?
Maybe after November they will be forced to obey our “rule of law”, the Constitution.
Democrats ‘Within Striking Distance’ on Disclose Act
House Democrats now claim to be “within striking distance” of the votes they need to sharply restrict the rights of organizations to participate in election campaigns — despite a recent Supreme Court finding that such legislative restrictions are unconstitutional.
Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans A. Von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, tells Newsmax that the timing of the legislation indicates its true purpose is muzzling groups that otherwise might freely voice their opposition to Democratic policies in campaign ads.
The Disclose Act, also known as H.R. 5175, is written so that it takes effect 30 days after passage — just in time to impact the November midterms.
“That’s just crazy,” Von Spakovsky tells Newsmax, “because whenever a new statute gets passed on campaign finance reform, the FEC has the job of creating the regulations needed to implement the statute. There is just no way the FEC, which I served on for two years, could in two months come up with regulations to enforce this law.”
Instead, he says, Democrats “just seem to be intent on creating a legal morass,” the uncertainty of which would discourage organizations from trying to voice their views at all.
Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith, chairman of the Alexandria, Va.-based Center for Competitive Politics, recently told Newsmax the Act is “one of the most partisan pieces of legislation to come down the pike.”
When the NRA threatened to mobilize its legislative juggernaut to oppose the Disclose Act, Democrats offered the group a special “carve out,” or exception. Any longstanding organization with a million or more members that also met other criteria, would be exempted.
That exception provoked howls of outrage from groups on the left, as well as from smaller groups that complained the NRA was acting to protect its own narrow interests. Van Hollen responded by lowering the threshold for the exemption to 500,000 members, thereby broadening the exclusion.
The NRA said Monday it does not support the law, but also won’t marshal its considerable political might against it as long as it is exempted.
In a recent interview, Smith told Newsmax the bill would shackle the political activities of corporations and associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, while leaving unions largely free to influence political outcomes.(no surprise here…Obama loves the unions)
He said the bill contains numerous “absurd” regulations, such as requiring as many as six disclaimers in a 30-second ad regarding who paid for it.
The Disclose Act also requires leading donors to actually appear in the ads to state their involvement — whether the money they donated went to produce that particular ad or not. Nonprofits and companies would have to disclose the names of their top five donors, as well as face other restrictions.
Such provisions, opponents of the bill say, are less about transparency than intimidating the corporate and association donors to stop promoting conservative candidates.
Other indications that the Disclose Act battle continues unabated:
The U.S. Chamber rolled out an ad campaign on Monday that warns the Act would “limit the speech of businesses and the associations that represent them in order to prevent them from expressing their political views.”
Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., released a statement saying Democrats were making “backroom” deals to try to salvage a defective bill. “They’re auctioning off the First Amendment with zero regard to the dire consequences of their actions,” he stated.
House members received a letter signed by over 232 organizations opposing the Disclose Act, saying it imposes “onerous restrictions on corporate free speech while ignoring unions’ immense political influence.”
The NRA’s Chris W. Cox issued a news release Monday stating: “The NRA has never supported — nor would we support — any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong. The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization.”
Von Spakovsky predicts Democrats who try to justify the Disclose Act to constituents over the July recess are in for a big surprise.
He tells Newsmax: “The Democrats are making a mistake because actually, when you explain to folks what’s really in this act, and you explain to folks what the Supreme Court actually did, as opposed to what the media portrays, a majority of American believe in the First Amendment and they come out saying, ‘This is a bad law because it infringes on people’s right to speak politically.’”
Leading Republicans tell Newsmax they believe that even if the bill passes the House (which it did today), they have the votes to block it in the Senate.