Washington (CNN) – Senate Republicans on Tuesday are expected to block for the second straight day Democratic legislation that would require greater transparency into who is behind much of the secretive, often negative campaign advertising that is filling the airwaves this election season.
"During this election, outside spending by GOP shell groups is expected to top $1 billion," warned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, in a floor speech. "The names of these front groups contain words like 'freedom' and 'prosperity.' But make no mistake: there is nothing free about an election purchased by a handful of billionaires for their own self-interest."
Republicans want you to show ID for your voting rights. I guess knowing who is footing the bill for these ridiculous commercials is not as important.
if you didn't sign the pledge,
I know republicans are short in memory (and other areas) but this all started with Citizens United. See, it's not like republicans suddenly introducing voting ID laws after getting a serious beatdown. Or insisting that it be done right now, before an election instead of doing in correctly. Or being done in response to actually issues and not made up, fabricated issue conservatives love to invent.
"Sniffit......POTUS has not disclosed all donors and of course he allows lobbyist to raise money for him. What is in that koolaide this year?"
You're wrong and worknig off assumptions. Check your facts.
Any voter who is not in the top 1% who votes for any Republican candidate I have no sympathy for and should have their heads examined after the Senate Republicans go on record to black transparency in Campaign contributions or SuperPAC contributions. Oh, the Hypocrisy – these same people want the 99% to show ID to vote. How corrupt can our government get??????? You can get your bottom dollar if the deck was stacked the other way in the Citizen's united sweepstakes, they would be crying a river for transparency!
OK, so set the limit at $1 and EVERYBODY must be listed. And not just the name of an organization but the name of EVERYBODY in that organization, with the organization name second. If unions are going to force people to pay dues that they then funnel to the Democrats then the persons name needs to be included, unless the union member was exempted from forced dues collection.
"Will it include 25 year sentences in a federal pen for using the information to intimidate, harass and assault people that are freely expressing their politcial views and preferences?
Otherwise, it is very clear the Democrats and leftists want to use this as a means to buiild an enemies/target list. they have done it in the past and will do it again. They are beneath contempt and will not be happy until they push people too far and people end up getting killed."
Wow. Enjoy your paranoid delusions and tinfoil hat conspiracy theories? Me, I'll be living in reality with the rest of the sane people. Oh, and perhaps you should maybe lay off the insinuations of violent revolution, etc...makes you look even more dangerously crazy.
BTW, want to explain how even a small group of disagreeable citizens successfully bullies, intinidates, harasses and assaults an extremelly powerful multi-billion dollar corporation that is trying to buy the next president in order to secure more tax cuts and deregulation? Are you huffing Glade from a plastic CVS bag as you type this stuff?
GOP = Obstructionists for their own political gain
"OK, so set the limit at $1 and EVERYBODY must be listed. And not just the name of an organization but the name of EVERYBODY in that organization, with the organization name second. If unions are going to force people to pay dues that they then funnel to the Democrats then the persons name needs to be included, unless the union member was exempted from forced dues collection."
Right, because that's not designed to discourage and alienate any and all campaign contributions. The point is to force disclosure of contributions large enough that they ring the magic bell in terms of creating the appearance of exerting undue influence. I don't disagree that unions should be just as subject to this as corporations. What I disagree with is the GOP/Teatrolls' obvious misinterpretation of the law in order to create this non-issue talking point that plays to the well-known anti-union leanings of their base. All they have to do is fart in the general direction of a union-influence conspiracy theory and you guys are sniffing it like there's no tomorrow.