Republican Senate votes against transperancy. So much for an open government.

The Disclose act, which would have prevented outside campaign groups from hiding their donors, was defeated in the senate in a vote that stayed along party lines (51-44).

TextThe legislation would prevent partisan “social welfare” organizations like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS from being able to hide wealthy donors. The IRS requires that nonprofit “social welfare” organizations “operate primarily to further the common good.” The organizations are prohibited from running ads in support of or opposition to candidates for public office. But groups like Crossroads GPS have attempted to circumvent the ban on partisan activities by attacking Democratic candidates in ads without explicitly urging people to vote against them.

So much for the Republican party being open to the public. Much like Mittens hiding his tax returns, the present day republican party is as secret as the Nixon white house was...and we all know how that turned out!

Republicans vote against government transperancy

government transparency isn't that an oxymoron?

of course they're going to vote it down because we all know what we would find and they would be out on their asses.

Government by the people, for the people, right? Time to make that sentence mean something.
Who the hell do these people think they are?

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
government transparency isn't that an oxymoron?

of course they're going to vote it down because we all know what we would find and they would be out on their asses.

Outside of infidelity (sometimes), and child abuse (sometimes) partisans will put up with just about anything from their team. With all the abuse of power and corruption that IS transparent, why would we asume a little more transparency into the crimes of these parasites would make any difference?

There is nothing wrong with private donations.

The trend nowadays is for intolerant liberals to target Republican donors and their families.

This could be considered a privacy and safety issue.

reply to post by sensfan


Just quickly, the Senate is controlled by Democrats... thats why Harry Reid is the Majority Leader if it was "down party lines" the Democrats and their longing for transparency would of passed. So lets not do the partisan tear squirting and lay blame on them all...

reply to post by freakshowfatty

The Senate allows for fillibustering. It takes 60 votes to stop a fillibuster. The Democrats needed that many to get the bill passed because the Republicans were going to fillibuster. They couldn't get the 60 votes. End of bill for now. It was a partisan vote.

reply to post by Carseller4

You are absolutely right that that was one issue receiving a lot of attention.

The DISCLOSE Act was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which claimed that it "would inflict unnecessary damage to free speech rights and does not include the proper safeguards to protect Americans' privacy. The bill would severely impact donor anonymity, especially those donors who give to smaller and more controversial organizations."

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by sensfan


Wait.....wasn't the vote along party lines? Don't the Democrats hold the majority in the senate. It looks like to me that the democrats are the ones voting it down

Originally posted by freakshowfatty
reply to post by sensfan

 

Just quickly, the Senate is controlled by Democrats... thats why Harry Reid is the Majority Leader if it was "down party lines" the Democrats and their longing for transparency would of passed. So lets not do the partisan tear squirting and lay blame on them all...

What a bunch of BS! Do you know anything about how the senate works and what it takes to get a bill through the senate?

FYI, the 51 votes were in favor of the bill! Only 44 voted against it. You'd think that in a group of 100, 51 votes would equate to a victory. The problem is that a "simple majority" doesn't rule anything anymore in the Senate, it now takes 60 votes to get anything passed and it only takes 41 votes to stop anything dead in it's tracks. The republican senators have been using this obstructionist tactic to insure that nothing gets done while Obama is in office because their number one goal is to see him defeated.

To the OP, F&S for shining the light on the fact that the republican party has no intention of ever providing the american people with any form of transparency.

Both parties want transparency when it benefits them.

This vote was nothing more than political grandstanding so that Harry could segue directly into Mitt's tax returns.

Pretty sad, really.

Congress should not be able to campaign for presidential candidates. That's not what we're paying them to do.

Good!

I mean, no-one cared about "transparency" when Gore was getting money from China.

No-one cared when Obama was getting money from Hezbola.

NOW it's a concern?

*whaa*

Originally posted by beezzer
Good!

I mean, no-one cared about "transparency" when Gore was getting money from China.

No-one cared when Obama was getting money from Hezbola.

NOW it's a concern?

*whaa*

I guess your of the "two wrongs make a write" mind. Oh they did something bad, so we can too. That's idiocy.

Originally posted by sensfan

Originally posted by beezzer
Good!

I mean, no-one cared about "transparency" when Gore was getting money from China.

No-one cared when Obama was getting money from Hezbola.

NOW it's a concern?

*whaa*

I guess your of the "two wrongs make a write" mind. Oh they did something bad, so we can too. That's idiocy.

Not at all. But I find it extremely hypocritical from the administration that touted transparency (and occluded everything) to get in a dither about this.

reply to post by beezzer


This bill they are trying to pass affects themselves just as much as it affects republicans. So why is it just the republicans are against it? Have they something to hide? Give me one good reason for this to be so split down party lines?

Liberals only want Republican transparency and will not allow transparency for themselves.

reply to post by sensfan


A little reading

In his partial dissent on the Citizens United decision, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas explained that forced disclosure of political speech is the corrupting influence on elections, rather than anonymity. “I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in” what Thomas labeled “core political speech, the primary object of First Amendment protection.”

www.thenewamerican.com...

On the one side we have the Obama campaign that actively goes out after people that don't agree with his administration

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Now if people were to lose their anonimity (sp?) they would be subject to potential attack.

Sounds like a good reason to me.

Originally posted by Flatfish


To the OP, F&S for shining the light on the fact that the republican party has no intention of ever providing the american people with any form of transparency.

Since youre a big fan of transparency and I'm sure none of it is in a partisan manner, could you provide a link to some of the Fast and Furious documents that Obama protected by using Executive Privilege?

I'm sure those documents are in the same folder as his school transcripts.

What's all the arguing and finger pointing all about????
It's the republicans, it's them it's all them bla bla bla

You currently have a Democrat POTUS that campaigned on transparency and is now the most secretive POTUS in american history perhaps.

Get a clue

IMO.

The whole thing was a set up.

The Dems know full well this is a 1st Amendment issue.

They know there is a possibility it would be struck down anyway.

The Dems knew full well it would not get 60 votes.

The whole thing was a set up.

Plus let's not forget the Obvious.......

All "people" would have to do is donate in $9999.00 increments anyway.