New GOP senator could vote with Democrats on campaign finance bill

[^_^ 5,021]

Sen.-elect Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) could buck his Republican leadership in his first two weeks on the job and vote in favor of a campaign-finance transparency bill that the GOP’s top brass ardently oppose.



Watchdogs are pushing for a vote on a stripped-down version of a campaign finance bill during the upcoming lame-duck session. That version of the legislation would force groups bankrolled by anonymous donors to disclose the sources of their funding, as well as their political spending.



Advocates for greater limits on campaign finance have been eyeing Kirk, as well as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), as two possible votes that could revive the once-moribund Disclose Act and give it the momentum it needs to pass the Senate and be signed into law.



...

The bill would require all groups to register with the Federal Election Commission and to disclose the financial backers of a political advertisement within the message.



After overcoming some serious hurdles, the bill passed the House this summer but was stopped in the Senate in late September when it fell one vote short of the 60 needed to break a filibuster, with Republicans uniformly opposing the bill.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/128185-sen-elect-kirk-could-give-dems-a-vote-on-disclose-act

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sell-out!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Transparency on campaign finance is an outright destruction of the 1st amendment.

You detroy free-speech the moment you force everyone out into the open to show their face in who they support, how much they support them....

The hypocrites in the Democratic party talk about disenfranchising voters? This is the exact way to do that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Transparency on campaign finance is an outright destruction of the 1st amendment.

You detroy free-speech the moment you force everyone out into the open to show their face in who they support, how much they support them....

Paul has crapped into the thread. What a load!

[The_Dude 1,142]

Transparency on campaign finance is an outright destruction of the 1st amendment.

You detroy free-speech the moment you force everyone out into the open to show their face in who they support, how much they support them....

The hypocrites in the Democratic party talk about disenfranchising voters? This is the exact way to do that.

Seriously paul, take your Haldol.

Making campaign donations transparent does not effect free speech. If you can't donate to a campaign because you are worried about what it will look like then I question your convictions and motives in the first place. This doesn't disenfranchise voters, it has a nil effect on voters. It does for corporations who don't want their stakeholders or customers knowing whom they donate too.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Rob & Mel

[^_^ 5,021]

Transparency on campaign finance is an outright destruction of the 1st amendment.

You detroy free-speech the moment you force everyone out into the open to show their face in who they support, how much they support them....

The hypocrites in the Democratic party talk about disenfranchising voters? This is the exact way to do that.

[mawilson 2,133]

So the 1st Amendment includes the right to speak with anonymity?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So the 1st Amendment includes the right to speak with anonymity?

We spend day in and day out trying to be accepting of the needs of the people.

Some people believe strongly in their beliefs, but don't wnat to offend those around them at the same time, nor do they want to upset their community that they are a part of.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to express a political opinion without prejudice. You lose that with complete transparency. You could end up with groups on your front lawn protesting you then, harassing your friends and family, etc..... That stops being free speech then, because then you'd be intimidated from expressing that opinion, eventhough you may strongly hold it.

Maybe make strictly corporate donars transparent, but individuals should never have to be publicly listed anywhere. BUT if you're going to make corporations transparent, that needs to include unions and anything that's considered a 'group' donation like that.... which funny enough, a lot of people are against in all of this...

[^_^ 5,021]

Freedom of speech is the freedom to express a political opinion without prejudice. You lose that with complete transparency. You could end up with groups on your front lawn protesting you then, harassing your friends and family, etc..... That stops being free speech then, because then you'd be intimidated from expressing that opinion, eventhough you may strongly hold it.

People have a 1st Amendment right to protest your speech, Paul. That right applies to everyone. You may say what you wish, but those who oppose you also have the right to protest you wherever you go.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

People have a 1st Amendment right to protest your speech, Paul. That right applies to everyone. You may say what you wish, but those who oppose you also have the right to protest you wherever you go.

Not necessarily. You have a protected firt amendment right to free political speech against the government, not individuals. The moment you start attacking/protesting individuals who are not a part of the government, is the moment a fine line is drawn. Then it becomes harassment and intimidation, which then in a lot of cases prevents that individual from his/her freedom of speech rights.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Freedom of speech is the freedom to express a political opinion without prejudice. You lose that with complete transparency. You could end up with groups on your front lawn protesting you then, harassing your friends and family, etc..... That stops being free speech then, because then you'd be intimidated from expressing that opinion, eventhough you may strongly hold it.

Wrong. There is no freedom to express your political opinion without prejudice. That is absurd Paul. If that were true, everyone in this subforum would be brought up on federal charges. I can call your political views as imbecilic if I want to, you know, freedom of speech. What I can't do is attempt to impede or censor you.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Not necessarily. You have a protected firt amendment right to free political speech against the government, not individuals. The moment you start attacking/protesting individuals who are not a part of the government, is the moment a fine line is drawn. Then it becomes harassment and intimidation, which then in a lot of cases prevents that individual from his/her freedom of speech rights.

Paul, again, you are misinterpreting legal terms here. You can protest against individuals all you want. The line at which it becomes illegal is quite definitive.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Wrong. There is no freedom to express your political opinion without prejudice. That is absurd Paul. If that were true, everyone in this subforum would be brought up on federal charges. I can call your political views as imbecilic if I want to, you know, freedom of speech. What I can't do is attempt to impede or censor you.

Actually we have laws with slander and libel that prevent you speacking out against my opinion in that sort of way. Just as the moderators here attach a stigma to those types of attacks, one can sue you for those type of attacks in real life. It happens all the time. If I am not a government official and in no way associated with the government, you have no inherent right to attack my free speech, just as I have no right to attack yours.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Actually we have laws with slander and libel that prevent you speacking out against my opinion in that sort of way. Just as the moderators here attach a stigma to those types of attacks, one can sue you for those type of attacks in real life. It happens all the time. If I am not a government official and in no way associated with the government, you have no inherent right to attack my free speech, just as I have no right to attack yours.

Wrong again Paul. First, you are not distinguishing between two distinct codes of enforcement, I'm going to stick to libel and slander for clarity though. There ultimately is an unbreakable defense to libel and slander lawsuits, it's called the truth. You can't sue me for libel or slander because I called someone an ignorant douche.

But back on topic. If you make campaign donations transparent, it has no effect on voting citizens. This will only effect corporate donations. You have yet to demonstrate (legitimately) how this will censor or inhibit people's right to expression.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Wrong again Paul. First, you are not distinguishing between two distinct codes of enforcement, I'm going to stick to libel and slander for clarity though. There ultimately is an unbreakable defense to libel and slander lawsuits, it's called the truth. You can't sue me for libel or slander because I called someone an ignorant douche.

But back on topic. If you make campaign donations transparent, it has no effect on voting citizens. This will only effect corporate donations. You have yet to demonstrate (legitimately) how this will censor or inhibit people's right to expression.

I have and per usual, you choose to ignore/not accept it.

If you cannot see how harassment on your donation choice affects ones ability to free speech, then you need to look at closeted homosexuals as a precise example of people who are persecuted for who they are, who feel they can't be open, who are afraid to express what they really want.