Thread: Democrats Close to Passing Dangerous Disclose Act

Democrats 'Within Striking Distance' on Disclose Act

Monday, 21 Jun 2010 08:03 PM
By: David A. Patten

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."

The bill's major backer is Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who also heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that works to elect Democrats to Congress. Late Monday afternoon, Van Hollen declared that House Democrats are "in striking distance of getting the votes" needed to pass H.R. 5175.

"I remain optimistic," said Van Hollen told the Washington Post. "I think a good majority understands that it's important to give voters information on who is paying for the ads that they're watching."

That's a marked change from Friday, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi yanked the bill from the House legislative after blue dog Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus revolted. Moderate Democrats feared the wrath of the many business groups opposed to the measure, while civil rights organizations worried the bill's restrictions could affect their donors as well.

One reason for the bill's revived prospects: The White House on Monday offered a strong endorsement, saying the measure "takes great strides to hold corporations who participate in the Nation's elections accountable to the American people. As this is a matter of urgent importance, the administration urges prompt passage of the Disclose Act."

Democrats say the Disclose Act will shed light on who the sponsors of campaign advertising really are. Conservatives, meanwhile, consider it a partisan end-run around the Supreme Court ruling designed to give Democrats an advantage in the mid-terms.

The Act stems from Citizens United vs. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down McCain-Feingold campaign-finance regulations that limited the rights of companies and associations to run political advertising.

The Supreme Court ruled such restrictions are an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama publicly scolded the Supreme Court for that decision. He said the ruling would "open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections," and urged Congress "to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

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.

He said the bill contains numerous “absurdâ€

DISCLOSE ACT - UP FOR A VOTE AGAIN
Dear Fellow Tea Party Patriots,

DISCLOSE ACT back on the calendar for tomorrow June 23, 2010! We must stop this 1st Amendment killing legislation. They are trying to stop our voices! Please call these Congressmen and tell them to Vote No on DISCLOSE ACT!


We have received information from Capitol Hill regarding the "Disclose Act" and we must work to defeat this bill. The vote is expected to take place tonight or tomorrow. We encourage you to find out more information about the DISCLOSE Act in the links below.

On April 29, 2010, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. The bill is a direct response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (McCain- Feingold) - a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year. Simply put, the DISCLOSE Act will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by Citizens United.

Speaker Pelosi and the House Majority Leadership are making it a priority to pass this bill. This bill is designed to take away the influence of Tea Party and other conservative groups in the upcoming November election. We feel like this bill will be successfully challenged in the courts, but the ruling will not come before the November election.

An exemption has been carved out for the Labor Unions and other leftist advocacy groups. The NRA was also exempted so they would not actively oppose it.

Roll Call Magazine reports today that they have carved out even deeper exemptions in order to assure passage and we believe it clearly shows the intent of the bill is to diminish the effectiveness of Tea Party groups and other newer conservative advocacy groups.

"Facing wide-ranging blowback from an exemption tailored for the National Rifle Association, House Democratic leaders have decided to expand the carve-out from disclosure requirements in a campaign finance measure they are trying to pass this week.
The new standard lowers the membership requirement for outside groups from 1 million members to 500,000. Those groups would still need to have members in 50 states, have existed for 10 years and can accept no more than 15 percent of their funding from corporate or union sources. The broader bill, called the DISCLOSE Act, comes in response to the controversial Supreme Court decision in January that struck down limits on corporate and union spending in elections. The bill would force groups participating in elections to name their top donors, among other changes."


We need you to make phone calls, send emails and faxes and urge the Congressmen listed below to vote no on this bill.
Together, we can make a difference!


Useful links:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38500.html

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/1 ... democrats/

Disclose Act

DISCLOSE Act Seeks to Blunt Impacts of Citizens United

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration 202-225-2801 202-225-5823
Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy 202-225-5315 202-226-6866
Rep. Jim Matheson (UT-02), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications 202-225-3011 (202) 225-5638
Altmire, Jason (PA-04) 202-225-2565 202-226-2274
Baca, Joe (CA-43) 202-225-6161 202-225-8671
Barrow, John (GA-12) 202-225-2823 202-225-3377
Berry, Marion (AR-01) 202-225-4076 202-225-5602
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02) 202-225-3631 202-225-2203
Boren, Dan (OK-02) 202-225-2701 202-225-3038
Boyd, Allen (FL-02) 202-225-5235 202-225-5615
Bright, Bobby (AL-02) 202-225-2901 202-225-8913
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-1 202-225-6131
Carney, Christopher (PA-10) 202-225-3731
Childers, Travis (MS-01) 202-225-4306 202-225-3549
Cooper, Jim (TN-05) 202-225-4311 202-226-1035
Costa, Jim (CA-20) 202-225-3341 202-225-9308
Cuellar, Henry (TX-2 202-225-1640 202-225-1641
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03) 202-225-5406 202-225-3103
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04) 202-225-6831 202-226-5172
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02) 202-225-3915 202-225-6798
Gordon, Bart (TN-06) (202) 225-4231
Holden, Tim (PA-17) (202) 225-5546 (202) 226-0996
Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01) (202) 225-5311 (202) 225-0254
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07) (202) 225-2731 (202) 225-5773
Markey, Betsy (CO-04) 202.225.4676 202-225-5870
Marshall, Jim (GA-0 202-225-6531 202-225-3013
Matheson, Jim (UT-02) (202) 225-3011 (202) 225-5638
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03) (202) 225-4031 (202) 226-3944
Michaud, Mike (ME-02) 202-225-6306 202-225-2943
Minnick, Walt (ID-01) (202) 225-6611 202) 225-3029
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05) (202) 225-2190 N/A
Moore, Dennis (KS-03) (202) 225-2865 (202) 225-2807
Murphy, Scott (NY-20) (202) 225-5614 (202) 225-1168
Nye, Glenn (VA-02) (202) 225-4215 202) 225-4218
Peterson, Collin (MN-07) (202) 225-2165 202) 225-1593
Salazar, John (CO-03) 202-225-4761 202-226-9669
Scott, David (GA-13) (202) 225-2939 202) 225-4628
Space, Zack (OH-1 (202) 225-6265 (202) 225-3394
Tanner, John (TN-0 (202) 225-4714 (202) 225-1765
Taylor, Gene (MS-04) 202-225-5772 202.225.7074




Kathyet