DISCLOSE-HR 5175

"The proposals in the ‘DISCLOSE Act’ (Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections) amount to nothing more than political posturing…This bill would create another bureaucratic layer of political speech regulation, which would punish small business owners and grassroots groups who lack the resources to comply with such onerous provisions.” - Bradley Smith, Center for Competitive Politics Chairman and Former FEC Commissioner, 2000-2005

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 – 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.

The DISCLOSE Act was marked up on Thursday, May 20, 2010, and may come to the floor later this week after rumors that the Democrats have reached an agreement with certain key groups. This is not meant to be an extensive analysis – which will be provided in the Legislative Bulletin once the bill comes to the floor – but rather to highlight some of the most egregious provisions of the bill.

Partisan ploy to get Democrats elected to Congress. The bill, “coincidentally” sponsored by the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in charge of electing Democrats to Congress, re-writes campaign finance laws in favor of Democrats right before elections. It was crafted behind closed doors with no input from Republican members of the House Administration Committee. The bill was designed by Democrats to silence their political opponents.

Creates a special, narrow carve-out for specific organizations intended to sway votes toward passage of the bill. The National Rifle Association (NRA), the Humane Society, and possibly a very small number of other groups, are reportedly covered in a last minute deal that creates an exemption from the financial disclosure requirements in the bill. This carve out does nothing to protect the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans who want to engage in the political process but will instead be deterred by this bill. As stated in a Wall Street Journal editorial this morning, “Creating a special exception for the NRA, and thereby assuring the Democrats ‘good grades’ on Second Amendment rights, eases the way for the bill to be passed. A failing grade on First Amendment rights is somebody else's problem.” The exemption is intended to make it easier for a bad bill to get the votes it needs to pass.

Favors unions over corporations. Current law already bans foreign nationals from contributing to elections. Current law already bans foreign nationals from contributing to elections. See the RSC Policy Paper on Citizens United for more details. DISCLOSE makes current law much more restrictive and bans independent expenditures on activity by American corporations with 20% or more foreign ownership. However, similar restrictions are not included for unions with foreign members or non-citizen members. As eight former Federal Election Commissioners stated in a recent Wall Street Journal article, “… Disclose does not ban foreign speech but speech by American citizen shareholders of U.S. companies that have some element of foreign ownership, even when those foreigners have no control over the decisions made by the Americans who run the company.” Additionally, the new threshold for reporting ($600 in donations for independent expenditures) will have little effect on unions whose members’ annual dues average much lower than $600. This would preclude unions from having to report. The bill also prohibits independent expenditures or disbursing funds for electioneering communications by anyone with a government contract greater than $7 million. (Originally, the threshold was $50,000, which was changed in mark-up.) This does not apply to unions in collective bargaining agreements with the government.

Threatens organizations with lawsuits for non-compliance. The bill becomes effective 30 days after enactment, giving the Federal Election Commission no time to craft regulations relating to the implementation of the bill, which will certainly be complicated, and not to mention expensive, to execute. Organizations would have to operate without any guidance from the FEC and risk possible lawsuits.

Onerous disclosure and reporting requirements will deter citizen engagement. The bill includes requirements that every incorporated entity engaged in independent campaign activity must list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The bill also requires CEOs of organizations to appear in the ads, and state their name and their organization two times. Additionally, the top five funders of the organization must be listed in the ad (and top two for radio), and if there is a top “significant” funder, he or she must identify himself or herself, his or her title, and state the name of the organization three times in the ad. These tedious and onerous requirements will have the effect of deterring organizations from getting involved in elections (and potentially take up most of the ad time).

Citizens United was a triumph in defense of the First Amendment right to free speech and a reaffirmation of the rights of businesses, unions, and citizens’ associations to engage in political communications. The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite, and the business community knows it. This bill is an attack on the ability of non-party organizations to engage in the political realm during an election year.

Astro-turfing- Dhimmi Style

GOPUSA:

In response to the success of the Tea Party movement comes a new anti-Tea Party effort. Dubbed "The Tea Party is Over," the organization seeks to "prevent the Tea Party's dangerous ideas from gaining legislative traction." Dangerous ideas? That's right.

That's exactly what the web site states at www.TheTeaPartyIsOver.org:

Our Strategy is simple. This movement is a fad. Some of their ideas include the belief that programs like Social Security and Medicare are socialistic and should never have been created in the first place and that President Obama is a Socialist. Other ideas include undermining the legitimacy of the federal government in favor of a radical rightwing form of state's rights. We need to prevent their dangerous ideas from gaining a legislative foothold. So our strategy is to spread the truth about their dangerous ideas and prevent their policies from taking root in America.

Now, for all of you who just read their "strategy," I ask you to go back and read it one more time. Let it soak in. Undermining the legitimacy of the federal government? Radical rightwing form of state's rights? Are you kidding me? Isn't that what's stated in the Constitution? Doesn't America have a tradition of opposing centralized power in favor of more rights and opportunities for its citizens?

As it turns out, this "grassroots" effort is not what it appears. In a brilliant piece of reporting by FOXNews.com, we learn a "seemingly grassroots organization that's mounted an online campaign to counter the tea party movement is actually the front end of an elaborate scheme that funnels funds -- including sizable labor union contributions -- through the offices of a prominent Democratic party lawyer."

My Two Favorite Conservative Ladies

IMAO the former governor of Alaska is scaring the panties off the left, especially the men.

The Hammer on the so-called reviews on "Going Rogue" by The Barracuda

The Art of the Unintellectual Critique of Palin's 'Insufficient Intellectualism'

There are thoughtful arguments to be made against Sarah Palin's future as a national politician, her persona as a conservative folk hero, her political ideology. Relatively few liberals or critics in the media bother to make them.

It's a testament to how thoroughly they caricatured her the first time around, and how little respect she warrants in some circles, that all questions about her are presumed perfectly settled, and serious engagement about her is often treated as a nuisance to be avoided.

To them, Palin is audacious (not in that good, Obama way) and out-of-line to even write a book. Her criticisms of the McCain campaign leakers who anonymously bashed her while the campaign was still going on are "ungrateful." To venture to promote the book is more audacious still, and means she gets exactly what's coming to her in all interviews and coverage, no matter how unfair. The fact that the book she's daring to promote is selling extremely well means more license still to sully the woman from Alaska once again. I've heard each of these sentiments uttered or implied by pundits or reporters in print, on Twitter, or on TV this week.

The thoughtlessness of these critics, who never see the irony in attacking Palin's alleged anti-intellectualism using debunked doctored photos of the governor in a bikini, is crystallized in Ana Marie Cox's review of Sarah Palin's Going Rogue today. It is perhaps overly generous to call the Washington Post piece a review.

It reads like an off-the-cuff e-mail to a friend with very low standards in e-mail correspondence. It's atrocious, not in its assessments necessarily (of which there are few), but in its laziness. I hesitate to excerpt much of it, because at 379 words, I would quickly be dealing with questions of fair use, but here's a taste:

Rush Limbaugh last week proclaimed "Going Rogue" to be "truly one of the most substantive policy books I've read," though that certainly raises questions about what other policy books Rush has read and by what lights he considers the Palin book to be one. For all I know, it may be true.

There may truly be substantive discussion of policy, something that goes beyond the thudding "taxes bad"/"government small" rhetoric that characterizes the moments when Palin turns her personal narrative into a discussion of government workings.

I cannot claim to have completely read "Going Rogue" -- I had to skim the last 150 pages (or more than one-third). I only got the thing into my hands late Monday afternoon with a deadline of early evening. It's terrible, I know, but if I didn't read it all, neither can Sarah Palin claim to have completely written it.

One of the few surprises of the book: For a frontierswoman, Palin really
doesn't like smokers.

It's a Washington Post book review, for goodness' sake, not a note you pass in between classes before that book report you totz didn't prepare for. In the print version of the article, Cox is introduced as a national correspondent for Air America who has described Palin as "crazypants with arrogant sauce on top," right before she criticizes Palin's take on campaign strategy as unsophisticated. Feel free to click over and read her devastating, postcard-length critique of Palin's, ahem, lack of substance.
But if you're short on time, skip it, and read our own Matt Continetti's thoughtful review of the same book, also in the Washington Post today—a juxtaposition by which Cox's effort suffers all the more. Sure, I'm biased, so here's a taste of his review by which you can judge:

Through no fault of her own, Sarah Palin has become a sort of political lens, refracting the different ways conservatives and liberals see the world. To her supporters, she is, as she puts it, a "common-sense conservative" who isn't afraid to make moral judgments. To her detractors, she's a moronic zealot who has no place in American public life. The two interpretations are concrete. "Going Rogue" won't do much to change any minds. But for what it reveals about our current political culture, Hans Robert Jauss would say it can't be beat.

I was originally just going to use this post to tout Continetti's review, but Cox's review was so emblematic of the frequent laziness and lack of professionalism that characterizes media coverage of Palin, that I thought it important to point out.
For more from Matt on Palin for the Palinistas in the audience, try his book.

The RINO Has Given Up

The grassroots in New York has spoken.
Now will the NRCC and the Minority Whip endorse the candidate of choice? Will they acknowledge that consevative values and principles are more important than party affiliation?
I'm not holding my breath.

From Drudge:

BREAKING: Scozzafava suspends NY 23 campaign

Republican Dede Scozzafava has suspended her bid in next Tuesday’s NY 23 special election, a huge development that dramatically shakes up the race. She did not endorse either of her two opponents -- Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman or Democrat Bill Owens. The decision to suspend her campaign is a boost for Hoffman, who already had the support of 50 percent of GOP voters, according to a newly-released Siena poll, and is now well-positioned to win over the 25 percent of Republicans who had been sticking with Scozzafava.
Scozzafava has “probably made her last campaign appearance between now and Election Day,” spokesman Matt Burns told POLITICO.
“She’s releasing her support to the two other candidates." "I had a discussion with her last night, and we made the decision after I spoke with her.
We talked about it, what this came down to was spending. It came down to the ability to defend herself from the get-go. And that’s the reality. She was unable to define herself where the people didn’t know her." POLITICO has the full story on Scozzafava's surprise decision here.

Thoughts on Liberty 101

That my blog partner couldn't find the time to attend.

....amidst the disparagement of grassroots efforts to push back on healthcare reform as currently envisioned in Congress, the former-community-organizer himself, President Obama, has tried to gin up grassroots workers who will pressure lawmakers into passing a massive healthcare overhaul. Contrast the “labor of love” work of my local compatriots to recent Craigslist advertisements to pay $15 per hour to “volunteers” to work to pass Obama's Healthcare Plan. Quite a difference in commitment, wouldn’t you agree? Real grassroots is “money-poor and people-rich” according to Wikipedia.
Hmmmm.....

I’ve been calling and writing to my representatives for nearly ten years. Yeah, a real time-waster, I know. Until this year, I had never marched in the vicinity of a legislator’s office, but I’ve now done so three times. I still haven’t carried a handmade sign! But I really do admire the creativity of my grassroots colleagues. Individuals around this great land have spoken up to our government leaders and found themselves thrust into the spotlight. So many of them have faced cameras and questions from all types of media and held their own in the debate. I have been enormously impressed by their courage and their passion. I don’t care much about the limelight, but I am going to keep working on the grassroots projects I’ve committed to.

No one has to pay me; it’s a labor of love.

Read the whole thing at Citizens Rountable.

MoveOn Is Hiring Skilled Organizers

and asking its members to foot the bill.

Dear MoveOn member,
It's getting ugly out there.

All across the country, right-wing extremists are disrupting congressional town-hall meetings with venomous attacks on President Obama's plans for health care and clean energy.

Last night in Tampa, Florida, a town hall meeting erupted into violence, with the police being called to break up fist fights and shoving matches.1

A Texas Democrat was shouted down by right-wing hecklers, many of whom admitted they didn't even live in his district.2

One North Carolina representative announced he wouldn't be holding any town-hall meetings after his office began receiving death threats.3

And in Maryland, protesters hung a Democratic congressman in effigy to oppose health-care reform.4

We've got a plan to fight back against these radical right-wingers.
We've hired skilled grassroots organizers who are working with thousands of local volunteers to show Congress that ordinary Americans (?????) continue to support President Obama's agenda for change. And we're building new online tools to track events across the country and make sure MoveOn members turn out at each one.

But we need to scale up our efforts quickly to make sure this plan works. To really swing into action during this month's congressional recess, we need to raise at least $250,000 immediately. Can you chip in $20 to support our work?

If the shouts of the right-wing mobs are the only voices our senators and representatives hear over the recess, we'll have a hard time passing health care and clean energy legislation.

That's why we're launching our Heat Up Congress campaign so quickly to fight back, using new technology to implement rapid response town hall turnout, organizing personal phone calls from small business leaders and donors to their representatives, running new ads, and activating an energized network of on-the-ground organizers and volunteers.

This month could decide the future of health care and clean energy in America” and we're already one week in. If you' ve been sitting on the sidelines, now's the time to get involved. Talk to your neighbors, go to a town hall meeting's and today, please chip in $20 to support our work