Third Party & Independents Archives

I have yet to hear of this bill. Thanks for the advance info.

One question. I tried reading the act but found it very obtuse and dense, like most legislation. It talked about robust disclosure.

I find most disclosure requirements weak and ineffectual. One of the problems is timeliness. It does no good if the disclosure can be made 6 months later. How does it avoid the creation of shell foundations and PACS to hide the real sponsers? Money is fungible, but shell organizations make it’s source very dense.

gergle, as the article states, it would require disclosure to be incorporated into the advertising itself, in the same way candidates have to disclose that they approve of their advertising message. No time delay on disclosure - it will have to be included with the ad.

gergle, what I don’t know is what the penalties for failure to disclose in the ad, will be. They will have to be STEEP to prevent deep pocketed organizations from circumventing the law and paying meager fines after the fact.

David,

But how is this different from saying “This ad is brought to you by Citizens for a Better Tomorrow.” and then finding out Citizens for Tomorrow is a PAC headed by some unknown guy who later turns out to be funded by a group of Oil Companies?

Are they going to require that the ad say, “by Citizens for Tomorrow, funded by Exxon, Arco, BP, Aramco, Shell….etc, etc.? The funding list could run into a 30 minute segment. That doesn’t seem very pratical and may well be deemed a hindrance on free speech. Or will it be one of those minutely printed scrolls moving at 60 mph up the screen?

We shouldn’t expect too much from a congress that brought us ENRON, Global Recession, greatest xfer of wealth in history, 90 of them signed to deregulate Glas-Stegal-, none complained when Gramm put the fix in the Comodoties Futures Modernization Act 2002, immigration as a political football, etc.

Tonight we are seeing Puerto Rico set up for mandated statehood, keyed to an unusual question, “do you like the current status?” whereas the question used to be “do you prefer statehood”. Done for political purposes irregardless of whether PR’s want statehood or not.

Otherwise, we have the Socialist-Corpocratic-Progressive government we deserve.

I read about this proposal yesterday. I imagined a corporation running adds endorsing both the Republican and the Democrat back to back.

The idea behind this bill makes me think that, with the Supreme Court ruling, we are one step closer to a Madison Avenue talent search for just the right candidates, hand picked to appeal the voters of a particular district.

jlw,

“The idea behind this bill makes me think that, with the Supreme Court ruling, we are one step closer to a Madison Avenue talent search for just the right candidates, hand picked to appeal the voters of a particular district.”

What makes you think it isn’t already happening?

Rocky

gergle, again, as I said in the 1st paragraph of the article, “The Disclose Act does not go near far enough to prevent corporations and labor unions from owning election outcomes.”

Incrementalism is a hallmark of all democratic governments. I was taught democratic forms of government are the worse kind, except for all the others. We can increment toward salvation and sustainability or increment toward dissolution. It is however, a fantasy to hold out for any democratic government doing all the right things at one time, forever and after.

Rocky,
Didn’t the Elders in the 70’s tell every American they are a Corporation?

David,
Why I am sure that some Corporations believe they can do no wrong; however, knowing your children can tell you the difference between a Good Corporation and a Bad Corporation I do believe there is no place for some to run and hide.

Remember Silence is Golden.

Thanks, David.

Rocky, I was thinking the exact same thing.

DR
I was somewhat involved in politics through my union. Thanks for including us. I just wish unions could put up anywhere near the amount of money corporations can throw at a campaign.The US would be a much better place to live.
We never tried to hide our support for a candidate or position. Quite the opposite. Many candidates would court our endorsement and money. Of course voters should know who is funding campaigns. I doubt if there will be any serious objections from organized labor to this bill.

What’s the problem with making all donations illegal except through the individual? One vote - one person. Can’t have any better way of supporting a Republic-Democracy.

Roy, what’s wrong with it? The Supreme Court is what’s wrong with it. Unless one plans on overthrowing this government and decommissioning the S.C. and all its rulings. No small undertaking, that.

David, not exactly a Samuel Adams response. Knowing that our government has been co-opted by the Corpocracy we should at once join together to correct the situation. Let’s consider a 3rd party that would promise the electorate a real reform of government. Let’s promise that we would abolish CP and MIFS and then deliver campaign finance reform.

We could pursue AVC as one path. Another might be with a takeover of Congress we could put the heat on business to the point where they would beg the courts to abolish CP and MIFS. Certainly, we could stack the SC with extra justices until we get the vote we want.

Seems commonly un-American to just accept the status quo because our government has been incrementally taken away from us. Don’t think the Founder’s would approve, David. They risked their lives, being decapitated, etc to achieve liberty and nationhood for us. Should we not try to be so bold in reclaiming our government?

Otherwise, we have the Socialist-Progressive-Corpocracy we deserve.

Could Congress not cut funding for the SC, have them holding court in chicken houses, sleazy bars, etc?

Roy
100% public financing is a way to at least curb corruption, free use of the public airways as terms of license for broadcasters etc. Not likely to happen. That is why organizations like the AFL-Cio and AARP combine small contributions from supporters. It makes a bigger bang. Its still nowhere near the amounts the corporations and wealthy can throw at elections.
As for third party,it does not relate. Its like having your car painted to fight world hunger.

“They risked their lives, being decapitated, etc to achieve liberty and nationhood for us. Should we not try to be so bold in reclaiming our government?

Otherwise, we have the Socialist-Progressive-Corpocracy we deserve.”

Reclaim from who Roy? If you do some research you will find that these SCOTUS decisions to allow the corporations control over the election process were made by the Fascist-Conservative-Corporacy wing of the SCOTUS yet you continue to blame the progressives ala Glenn Beck. The opposition to any reform such as the Shuman Van Hollen bill is by the Fascist-Conservative-Corporacy wing of the republican party as David has also described in his excellent post.

The SCOTUS judges that overturned precedent in the recent CU vs. FEC case were appointed by and large by Fascist-Conservative-Corporacy administrations of repub presidents. To underfund the SCOTUS because of a unpopular decision by the SCOUTUS reeks of Fascist-Conservative-Corporacy thinking IMHO and is not the answer to the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce

bills, public financing is the flea crawling up the elephants leg. And, two or more wrongs don’t make a right. Some actions would be helpful. We could have government supported c-spans on cable/broadband or on the Internet that would be solely for public use where candidates could make themselves known to the people. Would have to be some limits/vetting of candidates and that could/would become political.

We no longer have investigative media to vet candidates, their backgrounds as to where they have worked, criminal record, organizational ties, etc. For instance, we are just now finding out about the Obama administration and their plans to make a killing on climate change. With Joel Rogers and his COWS organization the groundwork was laid in 08/09 with something like a dozen organizations created to manage green energy projects. If it wasn’t for Beck we would probably never have understood what was going on. Education would go a long way to solving our problems but it would take a decade or more and the Corpocracy wouldn’t tolerate a mass education program anyway.
So, we sit, captured by the Corpocracy and according to too many we are incapable of moving in any direction. A rep in Ohio, I believe railing against the AZ law while trying to bring the natl guard into Ohio to control crime and violence. A corpocracy that sets up their own world gov’t (WTO) and when the Corpocracy subsidizes big farmers the taxpayer pays and when the WTO sues for same the taxpayer pays. The taxpayer/citizen must sit a frog in ever hotter water and do nothing. Beyond stupid IMO.
J2t2, it’s neither a dem or rep thing, it’s the Corpocracy. Woodrow Wilson and FDR gave us the first big government and the progressive movement has continued the push, from both the left and the right. It’s a tag team match IMO, big government and big business taking on the taxpayer. What is this thing about COWS and cap and trade? Talking a $10 trillion dollar scam. Big government and big business = big Corpocracy. The government can bring all these big programs to bear on the taxpayer yet in over 30 years can’t stop illegal immigration. Obama says Az is misguided. He and the Corpocracy are willing to leave the taxpayer to suffer the physical and fiscal results of immigration while the dems plan yet another scam to force Puerto rico into statehood for a few more dem votes and try to dump millions more onto mandated free healthcare. It would make more sense to me to assign each US citizen to 15 or 20 foreign types for their support and welfare while letting them stay in their own country. But, they wouldn’t go for that as somebody would ask to see their papers in their country.
The NAFTA/WTO thing was duopoly j2t2. The immigration laws on the WTO books are what we are enforcing for law in this country. The SC’s read foreign case law and study intl law so as to harmonize our laws with the world court. They just make it up as they go along, Constitution be damned.
So, we can’t move this way or that way. Can’t control immigration, Can’t defund the SC, Can’t have a 3rd party. As the old saying goes, ‘can’t never could do anything.

It is federal law that illegal immigration is illegal. Apparently the SC has signed on to that. So how can the duopoly and the SC refuse to enforce or see that the law is enforced? Yet, the duopoly and supposedly the SC doesn’t want Az supporting the identical federal immigration law.

Has the SC been challenged on this issue? I hear Tx is coming forth with a similar Az law. Where are the other cowardly border states on this issue? Why, sitting on the sidelines, of course, just like most Americans IMO.

“J2t2, it’s neither a dem or rep thing, it’s the Corpocracy.”
Well then why are you saying we have the S-P-C we deserve if it is just a corporacy Roy?

“Woodrow Wilson and FDR gave us the first big government and the progressive movement has continued the push, from both the left and the right. It’s a tag team match IMO, big government and big business taking on the taxpayer.”

Roy please tell me you are not trying to blame the SCOTUS decision regarding CU vs. FEC on Wilson, FDR progressives and the always vague “big government” for the trend in SCOTUS decisions by as David says activist conservative judges. If memory serves FDR was scorned by big business and Wilson’s anti trust work did not earn him any points either. You really need to go back through the history of the progressives and perhaps you will see the flaws in this logic the progressives are the hero’s of big business.

Whew Roy you have shifted the argument from the merits of the Shumer-Van Hollen bill to some “its all because of big government so it must be the progressives conspiring” argument. I really don’t want to get into the red herring conspiracy theory espoused by the likes of Glenn Beck as it just boggles my mind that his followers would actually take it seriously. It makes it hard to solve the problem when we don’t know the cause doesn’t it?

J2t2, Glen Beck said it boggles his mind to, but he loves what it is doing to his bank account. Glen said, “I’m just an entertainer.”

Of course, he is more than just an entertainer. He is a salesman to. Don’t wait until it is to late, buy your gold here.

jlw, gold? More like fool’s gold.

jlw Beck isn’t alone when it comes to dodging responsibility for his words and deeds yet despite the disclaimer of being an entertainer he has a following that believes his entertainment to be truthful and historically accurate.

“despite the disclaimer of being an entertainer he has a following that believes his entertainment to be truthful and historically accurate.”

That is the sad part.

There are tiny tidbits of truth in the diatribes. They are needed to make the message seem real and accurate, at least for those who want to believe.

Sen. Mitch McConnell is a sad part as well. During the McCain-Feingold debates, he argued against that bill saying instead, what was needed was full campaign finance disclosure by contributors. Now, here he is, opposing the bill that proposes what he himself advocated during the McCain Feingold debates. Hypocrisy just doesn’t get piled higher than this.

Here are some specifics in the legislation:

# Ban federal election expenditures by foreign corporations (including through their American subsidiaries).

# Require a CEO to appear on camera in all corporate-sponsored, election advertisements to state that he or she “approves this message,” much like candidates must do now.

# Make disclosure requirements for political contributions, lobbying and advertising far stricter and more transparent.

# Restrict political expenditures by federal government contractors and TARP or “Bail Out” recipients.

# Bolster existing rules that limit “coordination” of advertising efforts with federal campaigns.

To email YOUR representatives in support of this bill, click here.