H.R.5175 - DISCLOSE Act

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes. view all titles (9)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act as introduced.
  • Popular: DISCLOSE Act as introduced.
  • Short: Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act as introduced.
  • Short: DISCLOSE Act as introduced.
  • Short: Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act as reported to house.
  • Short: DISCLOSE Act as reported to house.
  • Short: Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act as passed house.
  • Short: DISCLOSE Act as passed house.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-51 of 51 total comments.

  • ElizabethPC 06/26/2010 7:03am

    QUESTION: It seems that (at least two) representatives have voted both yay and nay on this bill? How can that be?
    In the roll call voting list provided by OpenCongress.org, it shows, for example, that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) voted both yay and nay!

    Is it just a typo? Or is something “fishy” going on here? How can we find out the truth?

  • Comm_reply
    pramsey 06/29/2010 6:48am

    Be careful how you interpet the information. I had a similar reaction to the courtney vote record. He told me he voted for the bill, then I saw that he had voted against it in the voting records. What actually happened was he voted against an AMMENDMENT TO the bill, NOT the bill itself. You may be looking at an ammendment vote, and the bill vote seperately, thinking that they are the same thing.

  • Comm_reply
    Greenlander 09/22/2010 2:30pm

    He probably changed his mind one way or the other after some amendments were added – probably the one that exempts the NRA.

  • pramsey 06/28/2010 7:37am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    J. Courtney voted yes on this bill. He responded to my e-mail urging him to vote no. In his response to me he stated that although the bill is not perfect the policy of disclosure (read transparency?) is to important to vote no. In saying this he has clearly, in my book, put transparency (look how much that has helped so far) is more important than the freedom of speech provided by the Constitution! CT, vote now on Courtney next election!

  • Comm_reply
    amfriedman 07/26/2010 2:37pm

    Wait – how does transparency contradict freedom of speech? Why not be open about who we are and what we support? The shadiest stuff in politics occurs in secret. You’d have to be quite naive to think otherwise.

    In this spirit, the DISCLOSE Act is a fine bill that all patriotic Americans should support. Although I don’t see why we should give big organizations any exemption, on the whole this is a good step forward.

  • Comm_reply
    amfriedman 07/26/2010 2:45pm

    Wait – how does transparency contradict freedom of speech? Why not be open about who we are and what we support? The shadiest stuff in politics occurs in secret. You’d have to be quite naive to think otherwise.

    In this spirit, the DISCLOSE Act is a fine bill that all patriotic Americans should support. Although I don’t see why we should give big organizations any exemption, on the whole this is a good step forward.

  • MTeinert 06/30/2010 12:48am
    I support this bill because it stops all of the corruption of foreign influence of companies like bp in our own elections and also creates transparency of the actual candidates that are being elected. Knowing who is supporting someones campaign should be the right of the potential voters.
  • Comm_reply
    Lainie59 07/13/2010 10:40am

    You can access the Federal Elections Center and get information on who contributes to political candidates.

  • Comm_reply
    MTeinert 07/13/2010 9:22pm

    I would rather see this information after an ad so I know right then and there where it’s coming from and I think everyone else should too. Besides this Federal Elections Center doesn’t have the information that I deserve to know and why lie to people that can only find the truth by doing the research anyway? Most people will believe the smoke being blown up their ass and not do the research needed to expose the truth. Voting against this bill is basically just trying to hide the truth that the people of this country should have the right to know. How is that against the 2nd amendment? When I hear senators say that it just makes me laugh.

  • crispusattucks 07/07/2010 2:43am

    I oppose this bill. If fairness is what the Congress is after, why make special exemptions for unions?

  • Lainie59 07/13/2010 10:34am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    I oppose this bill because it is an attempt by Democrats to get around the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows corporate campaign contributions. This bill exempts UNIONS from the rules it makes for corporations and thus is discriminatory and clearly a partisan attempt to silence those opposed to the Democrats agenda.

  • Comm_reply
    amfriedman 07/26/2010 3:16pm

    “This bill exempts UNIONS from the rules it makes for corporations…”

    Again, where in the bill does it exempt unions from anything?

    And please read my comment on the huge $$$ difference between corporations and unions above, see: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/show?goto_comment=207874.

    We need to keep the correct perspective of who really has the power in this country.

  • soitgoes12 07/26/2010 4:11pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I love how the Republicans were ridiculing Obama for not being more transparent in the Health Care Debate… Even though the majority of it was broadcast on C Span… and now they claim this is restricting free speech. How so? The speech is still allowed… It just forces people to claim it. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If you really want a Democracy, we need transparency in government and we need to separate money from our Representatives. Corporations should not be treated the same as people, because they are not punished the same as people. They are not taxed the same as people. This Bill is a good first start, even though the Republicans are doing their best to water it down.

  • soitgoes12 07/26/2010 4:12pm

    This Bill has been altered in the Senate version to make sure Unions are included… for what it’s worth.

  • ryandsmith 07/28/2010 9:43am

    I don`t think this bill is going to be a good idea overall. It is clearly limiting free speech. The biggest problem is making groups fully disclose who their donors are. That could be real trouble.

  • Comm_reply
    Greenlander 09/22/2010 2:33pm

    In what way could that be trouble?

  • WhiteWolf1957 07/31/2010 6:04pm

    This is just another excuse for the government to stick their nose into the business of private citizens and private companies. Why don’t they try spending within their means like the rest of us? As to amendments to any bill…they only force railroading a bill to a positive vote. THAT’S BS!!! No more amendments!!!

  • Comm_reply
    amfriedman 08/22/2010 2:02pm

    By that token, why should the government stick their nose in the business of private food manufacturers and require them to label their products with information about their nutritional content (or lack thereof)? I’ll tell you why: because the government is protecting consumers and citizens from the selfish actions of powerful private interests. This is precisely where they ought to step in and require entities to be honest about who they are and what they are supporting in the political arena. Otherwise we are going to see slick, deceptive ads brainwashing Americans into fighting against policies that protect our health, our wages, and our basic rights!

  • Marydouglas76 08/23/2010 9:17pm

    The key to the issue is: is a for-profit entity a person? Is a for-profit entity entitled to protections under the constitution? Can a for-profit entity speak? That is what was so bad about the citizens ruling: entities are not people. Corporate speech comes out in the form of $$$$ to pay elected officials to do their bidding. Do our elected officials work for us, or them. When they work for us, we get laws that protect us from harm- usually from them. When they work for them, they get laws that are like Swiss cheese, full of loop holes so they don’t have to pay taxes or face regulation or pay for messes they make or create jobs that pay a living wage in our country….. Really, I could go on all day. If a for-profit entity can now buy commercials the run against a candidate who will make laws for us, or for a candidate who will make laws for them, then we lose both ways. It’s a pretty simple concept.

  • ianiam 08/26/2010 6:19am

    Hmm…Where in the constitution…..

  • erinc 11/22/2010 4:13am

    This bill is about knowing who’s bought off your senators & representatives on what issues. Monetary influence on elections is the opposite of democracy, guys. It’s the voice of the rich, not the voice of the people. I’m downright shocked that this bill is so unpopular on this site. Are you really OK with a few wealthy executives making the decisions that impact your life? You know the strip-search body scanning machines that many Americans find pretty violating? Wouldn’t you like to know if the manufacturers of those machines are donating millions to your representatives? Too bad, you really can’t, if they’re using an intermediary organization such as the US Chamber of Commerce. And even direct funding is completely legal. They’re paying off government officials to make it mandatory for airports to buy their equipment. I think that’s crazy, & I can’t understand why many of my countrymen don’t.


Vote on This Bill

28% Users Support Bill

219 in favor / 557 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments