jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (72 posts)

Disclose Act will cut off free speech during elections

  1. SparklingJewel profile image65
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    Grassroots Gag Order

    Fellow Patriots,

    There is a movement underway right now to clamp down on our free-speech rights in way we previously couldn't imagine.

    I'm not kidding, this piece of legislation will have you spitting your drink... so sit back, swallow any fluids, and brace yourself for this rest of this email.

    The Disclose Act is its actual name, but we're going to refer to it as what it really is, the Grassroots Gag Order.

    Dave Poff wrote a great column explaining what the Grassroots Gag Order is and why you should care. I highly recommend you read it and share the link with as many people as you can.

    Let me start with the following paragraph.

    This is outrageous. But it is instructive as well. We can no longer engage in discussions about candidates and their campaigns and their policy positions during the period 90 days prior to their primary/caucus/conventions and running all the way through the November election. In the case of President and Vice President it’s 120 days. Not only are we not allowed to speak…we’re not allowed to speak during the WHOLE of the campaign and election cycle when people are actually paying attention enough to consider whether they’ll even bother going to the polls! Democrats have the most to gain here…it is the Democrat party “we, the People” mean to teach a lesson to in 2010, and they’re trying to fend off the revolt that’s already being amassed against them before it’s too late.

    Then, we move on to the real kicker. Large, well funded organizations with 500,000 members or more are in some magical way exempt from the law.

    This bill will allow big organizations to continue donating big dollars to Politicians, so long as their membership is over 500,000 strong, they have at least one member residing in every state, and they meet certain tax-exempt criteria. It also prevents large dollars from being donated by individuals and small groups and… in my opinion worst of all…it extends to 90 days prior to an election all the limitations to free speech we were guaranteed in the Constitution would never be abridged…

    In other words... MoveOn.Org, Media Matters, Organizing for America and all of their ilk are free to do as they please. But you and I... the grassroots activists, are sealed and backed into a corner.

    The Grassroots Gag Order has passed the lower house and may be headed to the Senate next week. Our problem is that not many people know about it, and we MUST get the word out!
    I hope you'll spread this message far and wide, and be ready for any other action alerts we send out about this bill!

    For Liberty,

    Tax Day Tea Party



    anyone have any facts to prove this wrong about the Disclose Act up for vote in Senate soon???

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "anyone have any facts to prove this wrong"

      How about you give us some facts to show that your assertions are correct?

      Like, perhaps, the number of the bill, or a link to its page on thomas.gov?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sparkling-Jewel must have forgotten that the exemption was added to mollify the National Rifle Association, not Move-On or other progressive organizations. The organizations she mentioned didn't ask to be exempted from disclosing their contributions. They were included only because excusing only the NRA only would have been un-Constitutional.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sparkling wingnut cites exclusively from a tea-party article. What's interesting is how it is twisted to distort the intent or implementation of the bill. The wingnuts want to believe THEY are the targets of the bill and would suffer from the implementation. Only if they're afraid to disclose who they are (who is paying for the ads).

        I have to wonder if the tea-party movement IS actually funded by big business - an astroturf swindle from the get-go. OR did they simply slant the bill and oppose it in a knee-jerk opposition to all things  Obama?

        1. KFlippin profile image60
          KFlippinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          So, if the Sparkling Wingnuts were not the target of this bill, then it falls equitably on the Dangling Wingdings?  And has nothing to do with Obama's discontent and crossing of the line with the Supreme Court of the USA?  And you expect us to believe it is all about making the NRA happy?  I'll give that a long think, after I read Habee's link.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Dick Armey is one of the big guys behind the Tea Party movement through his FreedomWorks organization.

      2. KFlippin profile image60
        KFlippinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I doubt she forgot that unless she had access to the inside joke, which you apparently do. Classic pass the buck and load the gun of rhetoric.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You missed my sarcasm.

          1. KFlippin profile image60
            KFlippinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Darn, I'll check back.

    3. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Free speech???? Yeah, right, the only free speech in our systems at the moment are those 'speeches' that news editors permit to get on the airwaves. It is all soooo cosmetic, newspapers, TV stations and the like, chop and change, cut and paste, editorialize and spin, so that what is said is never what is said, and in any case, what is said is rarely what candidates actually think in any case (thanks to campaigns employing media-savvy spin doctors). Free speech??? Get a free media first... (and good luck with that)

      1. leeberttea profile image59
        leebertteaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What BS! We've never had freer speech than what we have now! Now we have the internet! Anyone can post anything. Don't like what's in the MSM? Start a blog and write what you want!

        Of course, the democrats don't like that idea, which is why they passed the bill giving the President the sole discretion to shut off the internet for 120 days. Oh and that's not the end of it. This administration won't be happy until they have extinguisehed all free speech.

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I am no fan of Obama, trust me, though most of what I dislike about him was being done already by the Republicans (I have heard Tony Blair described as Maggie Thatcher in drag... it's someting like that... not sure I can stretch the drag thing on this one... too much cross-dressing confusion...), and some of that was being done by Clinton before that, and Carter, and so on, etc.

          I agree with you that the Internet remains our best hope, and that protecting it is EXTREMELY important for that reason. The fact remains that most people get their information from newspapers (including online newspapers), CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and so on (as well as their online incarnations). The truth is that television still outweighs other sources of information on electoral issues, and that television is itself dominated by just a few organizations (the Big Three, CNN, Fox, to some degree PBS, in Britain the BBC and ITV/ITN, in Canada the CBC, CTV, and Global TV, as well as piped-in US stations).

          1. leeberttea profile image59
            leebertteaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yes but there are other sources, and regardless of the source of your information, you always have to consider the source and what their interest, and motivation is and what may be motivating them, then weigh that information against sources with competing interests. Even MSNBC has to report a fact once in a while!

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              MSNBC, Fox, even the BBC or PBS, they're all biased, in my view. Neither in America, nor in the country I'm from (England) or the one I live in (Canada) is there a sufficiently rigorous approach, not only to political issues, but to knowledge in general, among the general public. In principle viewing sources critically is the way to go, but ninety-nine percent of people don't take this moral duty as a citizen of a democracy nearly seriously enough.

              The proof of this can be seen in the extraordinary spectacle of an entire nation (well, a lot of people in that nation, at least) being hoodwinked into believing that Saddam Hussein had a connection to the World Trade Center catastrophe. It REALLY would not have taken much research to discover that Saddam was not particularly religious, for a start, and was frequently at odds with Islamist fundamentalists in any case. It's just an example, but my point is that you cannot trust people (Canadians, Brits, Americans or, for that matter, Iraqis, Chinese, Russians) to be able to critique their sources of information, because there is almost no culture of intellectual critique in GENERAL (unless it is in relation the the TV show Lost, perhaps...)

        2. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          FYI:

          1) The bill has not been passed.

          2) In its current form, it does not give the president the authority to turn off the internet. It "would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee."

          3) I can guarantee that if the U.S. were subjected to a cyberattack and there were no cyber-emergency response plan in place, conservatives would be howling about how the administration is soft on security.

          1. Pcunix profile image87
            Pcunixposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly.

            In fact, it's a no win always.  Whatever Obama does, the TP or the GOP or both will find a way to paint it as something awful.

            It can get pretty funny seeing how far you can go with these, um, um, I just can't think if the right word.. Oh yeah, I have it, but if I use it here I'll get banned, so I won't.

            Try this: when they bring up the Internet thing, try to convince them you just heard that the President has announced that he will not sign it under any conditions.  Watch how quick it turns out that we NEED  Presidents to have this power.

          2. leeberttea profile image59
            leebertteaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            No matter how you want to spin it, that's a lot of power for one man.

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              "In its current form"... still, it's too close for comfort.

              The Internet MUST remain a public, open forum. It is our last, best hope, in my view. Hubpages forums prove this. What the hell IS a cyberattack in any case!

              Fortunately (I think), while we have Google in the game, (the corporation Google, I mean), then probably the government cannot match the power of those guys (I hope).

              I still say, however, that Obama is only continuing a trend started under Bush Junior. It is DEFINITELY a trend that must be squashed, and I commend the Tea Party for any efforts it might make to do that... that does not mean I support the Tea Party, because a lot of its members actually just seem to hate Obama -- but Obama is not the (only) problem... Bush-Cheney clearly set this in motion, Obama has continued it. What REALLY needs to happen is for BOTH major parties to have bejeezes scared out of them by the People -- don't hang your hopes on the Republicans, is all I'm saying: America is a One-Party State where that Party merely has two bickering factions to it, wherein one always has (slightly) the upper hand

              1. Pcunix profile image87
                Pcunixposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                A cyberattack would be something either trying to shutdown communications to critical infrastructure or  infiltrate it for compromise or control.

                Either way, your worry is silly:  if an attacking enemy succeeds in disruption or control, isn't that just a little bit worse than the awful liberal guvmint shutting down your surfing?

                Oh, yeah, I forgot:  anything liberals do to protect security threatens basic freedom.  Anything conservatives do is in our best interests.    I always forget that it's not what's done, it is who is doing it.  It's just like the awful health care bill that was almost identical to what Republicans wanted not so many years back - it was a wonderful idea when they wanted it, but sinful when the other side wanted it.

                Don't think I am exempting the Left from this hypocrisy.  Often they have been just as guilty.  But the current batch of TP and GOP nay sayers have brought it to new heights.

                We are going to tear this country apart if we don't stop this nonsense.

                1. leeberttea profile image59
                  leebertteaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Except you're assuming that one man will be honest about the emergency. You're trusting government won't abuse that power.
                  Of course we would have to pass the bill to see how it works right? Isn't that what they keep saying about everything? Trust me!

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    The government consists of more than just one man.  No, I don't trust the government to be honest about everything, but I'd rather have some protection in place than none at all.  By your reasoning, the President should have no emergency powers whatsoever in a time of crisis, since he can't be trusted.

                  2. Pcunix profile image87
                    Pcunixposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, gosh, everyone knows that all liberal Presidents always try to take over the country and turn it into sone pinko socialist state.  Even *I* know that!

                    Your paranoia is showing.  Calm down and look at it rationally.  Pretend Limbaugh thought this was a great idea and imagine why he could think that.

                    A cyberattack means either shutdown or control.  It would be a rapidly evolving threat and frankly by the time the President heard of it, it might be too late.  But if it wasn't, do you really want to waste time arguing about it?

                    This isn't like declaring martial law.  It would mean inconveniencing most of us.  It would mean some of us would lose some income, but if there was a successful attack, we have all that and worse.

                2. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Presumably you are directing this response to the wrong post. But I will respond.

                  I actually *know* what the word "cyberattack" means. I was using a rhetorical device (if you know what that is).

                  I can in fact *spell* the word "government". Your implication that I can't is, I realize, also a rhetorical device. In this case the device is to imply that conservatives-rightists (what-have-you) are dumb, or uneducated; which is elitist, snobbish, and plays right into the hands of those who want to say that all liberals are elitist and snobbish. Worse, it implies that people who are uneducated shouldn't be part of the democratic process -- that, to me, flies in the face of the American ideal, which is supposed to be Government by (all of) the People (not just the educated, or those who see themselves that way).

                  As to your point as such, if the Internet goes down, whether to a "liberal guvment", a conservative "guvment", or Islamic space aiens, we are all a lot worse off. Ridiculing the debate is tantamount to ridiculing the ideals of freedom of association, freedom of public assembly, and freedom of speech, all of which are provided by the Internet with the most powerful platform the world has yet seen: why do you think the Chinese want to control it?

                  Thus, ANY potential tampering with Internet access is SERIOUS STUFF.

                  Anyway, I am not a liberal, though I do in fact possess many liberal values, I am not a Christian, I am not a member of the Tea Party, and I am not a conservative, though I do share some values with 'true' conservatives. I am not an Obama-hater, though I do think he is a big disappointment, and hardly better than what we have seen in the past (not counting Dick Cheney and the others in his administration of course). Hell, I am not even an American....

                  You are contributing to the tearing apart of your country with your condescending manner of responding. Call that engaged debate? How do you expect Tea Party supporters to respond to that? With an 'oh yes, you're right we're dumb heels -- thank you for pointing that out, oh enlightened person-I've-never-met-in-my-life' perhaps???

                  Come on.

                  You ssy this bickering is tearing you (collectively) apart. But you then in the next breath try to quantify hypocrisy... Good luck there with that one. Leftists, centrists, rightists, they`re all hypocrites sometimes. They are all shrill sometimes. There is no right-wing monopoly on shrillness.

                  Frankly, as an outsider, I`d say that the critics of the Tea Party remind me of some of the members of the Tea Party. Many Tea Party members hate Obama for reasons that have little to do with loving America, or Democracy. Similarly, many Tea Party critics are simply responding in their commentary to a reflexive rising of the heckles whenever thos 'dumb clucks' get out their placards. Same sentiment... tearing apart your own society based on unhelpful stereotyping: yep, couldn't agree more.

                  Finally, to reiterate what is, for me, as a non-American living in a free democracy, the MOST important point -- THE INTERNET NEEDS TO BE GUARDED FROM CONTROL AT ALL COSTS. Once we lose the ability to communicate with each other, we are royally, well and truly SCREWED.

                  It is not 'silly' -- but thanks for raising the possibility that it is, so that I can react so strongly to the statement that it might be.

                  1. Pcunix profile image87
                    Pcunixposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree that the Internet needs to be protected.   It needs to be protected from big business and it needs to be protected from governments. That's exactly why it might need to be shut down in an emergency.

                    I AM a liberal, but not a lock-step non-thinker. 

                    Yes, I was harsh toward the TP folks.  I agree there is reason to be angry and actually I'm angry about some if the same issues.  However, I see very little intelligence in the TP movement and far too much jingoism and proud flag waving nonsense.   To me, most of it seems tailor made to attract and reward ignorance.

                    I wasn't implying that you can't spell and had no intent to sound condescending.  I'm sorry you read it that way and apologize for that.

            2. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              The first two items were statements of fact, provided to correct your misstatements, in case someone who actually wants to know the truth happens to be reading.  The third was my opinion.  You seem to throw around your opinions quite a lot, as well as statements of "fact" that turn out to be false.  Is that spin, too? 

              What you don't seem to realize is how overwrought and paranoid you sound when you overstate your case and include lies and distortions to bolster it.  Example:  "This administration won't be happy until they have extinguisehed all free speech."

              That statement, on top of your original lie, exemplifies why the Tea Party and those who claim to support its ideals are not taken seriously by so many.  If you can't even get your facts straight, and you make ridiculous statements like that one, then you become a joke.

              By the way, where did you hear that the bill had passed?

              1. leeberttea profile image59
                leebertteaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You just said it didn't pass. I'll assume that's correct since I haven't bother to check. Secondly you said the bill doesn't contain that provision "in it's current form", again I'll take you at your word, but as you said a final bill hasn't been passed and we all know how Obama gets his way through bribes and payoffs, (see healthcare).

                Okay admittedly I speak with a healthy degree of hyperbole, but certainly in no more measure then the rhetoric spewed by this President at every crisis manufactured or otherwise (see energy speech after the oil spill).

                So please. , it's not paranoia, more government equals less freedom, less government equals more freedom. Power corrupts absolutely. The question you should be asking yourself is, what if Bush was passing these bills, would you still support them?

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
                  Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  The Obama administration has already said that they will not support Lieberman's idea...

                2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  The health care bill, as finally enacted, fell far short of what I would have wanted.  I supported it because it was a step in the right direction.  If Bush's congress had enacted it, I still would have felt it was better than nothing, which is how I feel about the one passed during Obama's administration.

                  With regard to the internet security bill, all I can say is that we need some kind of protection during a cyber attack.  I am not enough of an expert to know exactly what form that should take, but I do agree that if a massive cyber-attack occurred, then the President should have the authority to respond in an emergency and seek congressional approval for any ongoing emergency measures beyond the initial response.  I would support that with any President.

                3. Pcunix profile image87
                  Pcunixposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, I would.

                  I actually liked some of what Bush did.  Until he took us to Iraq, I thought he was doing pretty well overall.  There were things I didn't agree with, but I always felt he at least thought he was doing the right thing.

                  I wouldn't vote for him, but until Iraq, I did not dislike him.

            3. Pcunix profile image87
              Pcunixposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              So, in a time of national emergency, you want exactly how many  people to argue about whether we should or should not?

              Ooh, I have an idea: we can have a national referendum!  That won't take long..

              1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
                AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps a quick survey of human history will reveal to you that this sort of one-man power is dangerous intrinsically. This is why in general other Western democracies don't given their leader quite as much power as the President seems to be able to get his hands on. Heck, Maggie Thatcher was expulsed by her OWN party mid-term...

                This is not about Obama. Would you have wanted Bush Jr to have this power? How about Bush got knocked off and Cheney became president????

    4. bgamall profile image84
      bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The Tea Party blames subprime borrowers for the housing ponzi scheme. They are liars and flakes. The cause of the ponzi housing loan scam were the banks, who were able to write swaps, ie, insurance, against bad loans. This was made possible by the Repeal of Glass-Steagall that separated banks from insurance. And it was made possible by Basel 2 in 1998 when they permitted off balance sheet banking.

      The ponzi housing scheme was and is a scam. It is even worse in China where you can get a 255 year mortgage. You never own the house! The house will disintegrate before that.

      I advocate walking away from debt. The reason why is that the Tea Party and others are blaming the wrong people. They divert attention from the scamming international banker cartel. The Fed is a private bank. Wake up hubbers.

      1. Sab Oh profile image62
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "wake up" = liberalspeak for "agree with me or you're a dope"

        roll

        1. bgamall profile image84
          bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          All you have to do is study it Sab. You can choose to look the other way or you can blame the true culprits, the international banks. It is up to you. I emailed the founder of the Tea Party. He is a flake, I heard him on CNBC kissing up to Wall Street. He is a scamster, a flake, a liar, and  and an immoral elitist:

          This is the link if you want to understand ponzi's: http://hubpages.com/hub/Banking-Scam-El … et-Expense

          I also have an article on the demise of the 30 year mortgage, which will go away if Fannie and Freddie go away, and on the Tea Party. As far as I am concerned, no one should get a recourse 30 year mortgage now.

          And what happens when China's 255 year mortgage goes away? Crash.

          1. bgamall profile image84
            bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            One lesson here, Sab. Nothing that happens in the financial world is by accident. We already have one world government. I wrote about that as well. It is because the financial world is an oligopoly and national sovereignty means nothing. Mainstreet is the victim of the scam.

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I really wish people wouldn`t bandy about terms like 'One World Government'. It just confuses things.

              We do NOT have One World Government. We simply don't. More importantly, I think, using a term like that suggests, in my opinion, that the powers that need to be resisted are anything like as powerful as they are assumed to be.

              I am also not sure it cuts it, to be honest, to say that a Hub has already been written about it. Most of us will probably not search for that Hub. So your brief comment will stand on its own. And it is not clear what you mean.

  2. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    The DISCLOSE act is designed to put a warning label on political advertising. What the teabaaggers are opposed to  - what his law requires - is that if you are BP and you want to dontate 500 million to endorse a slate of pro-oil candidates, when you buy advertising as 'Citizens for the Gulf' at the end you have to admit the ad was PAID FOR BY BP....

    The Supreme Court last year struck down limits on corporations to  support (or oppose) in political advertising. The sky is the limit. The idea of the act is to make the sponsors DISCLOSE who they are.

    The exemption is not intended for the Sierra Club or any liberal organization. NPR said the exemption was put in as a concession to the NRA, with the understanding the NRA would not oppose the law.

    1. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, so you are referring to the ruling that resulted in the quite unique insult paid to the Supreme Court by Obama last year.

      And the law proposed to be passed under discussion by the OP must be real, or you would have exposed it as an idiot email farce, and you did not.

         Did you really mean to say that? 

      With great interest I will read the rest of the responses to this topic.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Let me try to explain this so you can understand. There is a bill called DISLOSE. That part is true. (Still with me?)  The OP is a gross distortion of what the bill will do - and what its intent is.

        Yes, this is about the Supreme Court ruling that President Obama disagreed with publicly. Under the SC interpretation of free speech, corporations are unrestricted in how much money they can throw into elections. DISCLOSE doesn't try to reverse the SC decision - but it requires you  disclose in the ad where the money is coming from. So if a group called 'Citizens for the Environment' supports a gang of pro-drilling candidates - if the MONEY comes from BP, the ad has to say so.

        The law doesn't propose to gag the Tea Party Movement at all - but if the s advertising in TP ads comes from  Wall Street Bankers.. they will have to 'fess up in the ads. That would tear a hole in the 'grass roots'  part of the con. That's the only way the law would cut into the TP (funny, that's how I list toilet paper when I'm shopping.) movement.

        1. KFlippin profile image60
          KFlippinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Well, just how do you post multiple repetitive ROFL's?  Do, help me to understand!

          "The grass roots part of the con" , what telling words are at your fingers and in your mind, and how worried your betters are that the majority of Americans have realized the "con" of all time, and will vote against that "con" of fictitious hope and change that even our elderly bought into, to their great regret.

          Far left indoctrinated Democrats should take some Milk of Magnesia to prep themselves for the coming days that will choke up their innards.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            ROFLMAO! Screech on, KFC!

            1. KFlippin profile image60
              KFlippinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Ah, so nice to see your thoughtful rebuttal.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                One good turn.......!

  3. habee profile image92
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Go here to read the official summary:

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/show

    Seems pretty tame to me.

    1. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Haven't read it, but will follow your link, but the mere fact that it has occurred on the heels of the public insult to the Supreme Court on their ruling, tells me it is in no way 'tame'.  I've no problem with corporations being required to disclose ads they pay for, doesn't even seem a new thing, lots of political ads say 'paid for by so and so', and Obama himself was a great great great recipient of corporate donations, so.......there must be more...of consequence to our country.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks you Habee! I'll take a look at the actual text of the bill, and then compare it to the OP's assertions.

      I would love it if all political ads had to disclose how they were paid for.

      I'd like it even more if whenever a politician appears on TV, the networks will put their top five donors and how much they donated in the little scrolly text at the bottom of the screen. I think many Americans might vote differently if they had this information.

  4. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

    Not too sparkling, Jewel!

  5. leeberttea profile image59
    leebertteaposted 7 years ago

    The real question we need to answer is why is this being done? What "problem" are we trying to fix? Why are we exempting some from the law? Whose idea was this bill? Who gains? Who loses?

    This whole thing stinks if you ask me!  It's another way politicians seek to quell free speech and hold onto power.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image61
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "The legislation is a response to the Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case last January. That decision overturned a decades-old law banning political expenditures by corporate interests. The new Senate legislation would partly restore those limits – by barring foreign-controlled corporations, government contractors and companies that have received government assistance from making political expenditures – and also require corporations, unions, and other organizations that make political expenditures to disclose their donors and stand by their ads."

      http://schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=324343&

      Lee - I think that answers your questions. I have one for you. On what basis do you suggest that the law is about  "politicians seek to quell free speech and hold onto power." Granted, the GOP oposses this bill on those grounds, but the actual bill does none of those things.

      1. leeberttea profile image59
        leebertteaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        On the bassis that the bill allows for a number of "exemptions", which is typical in a partisian bill such as this. The exemptions are used to garner support for a bill which isn't perfect, but when you're talking about election law, and transparency, then you ought to be sure the bill is perfect!

        It's no wonder the bill has only partisian support.

        http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/20 … e-act.html

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps if you posted a few "perfect" bills for us to examine it would help!

          1. leeberttea profile image59
            leebertteaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps if the democrats weren't obviously scum sucking, progressive, power hunger, american hating, intolerant, dictators, they could write one.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Well, you could post some perfect bills the cons wrote if you like.  And why would democrats hate America?  I hear this often from your ilk but, so far, none have given a good reason why we would hate our own country.

              They seem to think we hate America because we do not agree with their ideas of how this country should be. We are allowed to have an opinion whether you like it or not, Lea!  If it makes you and others feel better to resort to childish accusations, then by all means do so.  Are you old enough to vote?

              1. leeberttea profile image59
                leebertteaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philo … merica.htm

                That pretty much sums it up for me, though there is much more evidence to support my view.

            2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You could have your own show on Fox.  You have exactly the intellect and temperment they look for.

              1. leeberttea profile image59
                leebertteaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I apologize for the outburst. Sometimes I get tired of debating the facts. That aside there is plenty of evidence to support the view that the current cast of democrats controlling our government are leaning too far left of the views of most Americans.
                As i said I get tired of the debate. Those of you on the far left won't admit what is happening right before your eyes even as you don't agree with the assertions, so what's the point?
                Maybe at some point in the future we'll be fighting on the same side, for now I guess I'll have to fight against you.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You know, we are all fighting on the same side, whether you believe it or not.  I have absolutely no beef with conservatives who are willing to work together with liberals to find solutions.  But this kind of crap (and that really is the only accurate word for it) that you just spewed is par for the course from "your side." And I use the term "your side" only because you have made it clear that you perceive liberals/Democrats/progressives/whoever disagrees with you as the enemy. 

                  I'm really tired of it, too.  I'm especially tired of the intentional disregard or distortion of facts that comes from certain people, all for the sake of "winning."  For whatever reason, call it the absurd worship of the truth, I can't look away when I see stupid and inaccurate statements on the forums.  I always imagine that there is someone out there reading it, someone looking to understand the issues but too lazy or time-constrained to find out the facts for themselves, who will read the lies and crap posted here and assume it's true.

                  If you really want to fight on the same side, just do it.  All you have to do is quit viewing people who disagree with you as "scum sucking, progressive, power hunger, american hating, intolerant, dictators."  We're all Americans, and we all love this country and simply want to make it better.  We just disagree on how to do it.  Can't we disagree without viewing each other as the enemy?  Nothing is ever going to get done unless we do, and it starts with each individual choosing to reject the hate and to acknowledge that disagreement will always exist among people who are passionate about their country.

                  I am an American, just like you.  I celebrate the 4th of July, I value the constitution, and I teach my kids about the importance of being informed citizens and voting.  I am the daughter of a veteran, and I am in love with a veteran of the Viet Nam war who retired from the military and who also happens to be a conservative Republican, yet I have been accused of hating the military and hating veterans.  I am no less American than you are, and it is highly offensive for you to say that I am. 

                  Yes, I'm tired of it, too.  But I'm not going to sit back and let this kind of thing continue to get a pass.

                  1. leeberttea profile image59
                    leebertteaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    No, we don't disagree on just HOW to do it, we disagree on everything, the role of government, the meaning of the words in the constitution, the intent of the founders, capitalism, our role in the world, it goes on and on. My feeling is we were meant to be free, government is oppression, if you want more of it, then you want to take my freedom. I can NEVER agree with that. From my point of view if you really want to be dominated by a government, start a commune and live on with with like minded people. You should be free to sacrifice your freedom if that is what you wish just please, keep your hands off mine! Stop trying to tell me what's good for me. If you dems can do that, we'll get a long just fine.

                2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Let's start with your first false assumption.  "those of you on the far left..." 

                  Many of your mis-statements (and much of your frustration that leads to your emotional outbursts) stem from your view that anyone who isn't a Teabagger, John Bircher, or Ditto head is "far left".  A person of the far left would presumeably vote for Democrats at least occassionally.  I never have, though I will gladly contribute to Obama's landslide victory in 2012.  I have voted and supported mostly Libertarian and Republican candidates all of my life and have argued conservative points to true leftists.

                  To paraphrase recently retired justice John Paul Stevens, I haven't moved to the left, the right has simply moved to the extreme, absurd edge.  I can't support the so-called conservative viewpoints expressed in these forums such as:

                  The constitutional right for individuals to own nuclear weapons.

                  The intellect of Sarah Palin is an awesome thing to behold.

                  Gays are second class citizens that must be saved from their own nature.

                  Obama is a Socialist because Glenn Beck says so.

                  It is because of this putrid tripe regurgitated by today's moronic conservatives that I automatically reject any and all of their views.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    The Tea Party is a menace that may destroy the GOP.

                  2. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I totally agree, Ron!  I voted independent for most of my years but now it is for the lesser of two evils for the most part. I do not agree with either party totally. 

                    The republican party has changed into something I dislike.  Or perhaps it hasn't changed enough and had remained mired in the past.  The last administration was the final straw!  Either way, it is my choice to support who I want for office, despite the wishes of others.

        2. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I think the exemptions are an example of post-partisan politics, not partisan politics. 

          However, in addition to this Bill, I think a Constitutional Amendment should be put forward, preventing corporate sponsorship in elections. In my opinion, the argument that such an amendment would be  difficult to ratify (it would be) should not be accepted as a reason for not trying to do it.

  6. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

    Sigh....

    sad

 
working