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.

mike3 06/24/2010 10:50pm
in reply to peacefrog Jun 19, 2010 12:35pm

So what would you think if you got a bill that applied it to them all?

mike3 06/24/2010 10:48pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to peacefrog Jun 18, 2010 6:15pm

So then what would you think about a different bill that would do the reverse: silence and/or intimidate the voice of large powerful organizations, while protecting and coddling the small guy and the grass roots?

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Dasher 06/24/2010 7:06am

What part of free speech does Congress not understand. If a union can force there members to pay for political ads I see no reason a corporation can not pay for its own political ads. After all there is much bad legislation that affects business in America. It is time they have the same free speech rights as individuals. If you want to deny a corporation free speech maybe there should be no corporate taxes.

EqualJustice 06/24/2010 6:42am

This bill will only give the liberal Democrats a monetary advantage in the fall. I wonder who will actually end up EXEMPT from this? It has ALREADY been ruled “unconstitutional” in the courts. They should now abide by that decision!

tumbleweed 06/22/2010 6:50pm

Regarding the NRA and getting a ‘backroom deal’, read their website. The NRA focus is the right to bear arms, not to fight for freedom of speech. There are other organizations that focus on the first amendment. Pelosi was not giving the NRA a deal but exempting other organizations, like the Sierra Club. It turns out that other liberal’s will not vote for it now because it does exempt the NRA, which was their goal, to quiet the NRA. By exempting organizations like the NRA, the bill may go down in defeat. If so, the NRA actually did stop the bill.

tumbleweed 06/22/2010 6:36pm
in reply to jason87 Jun 22, 2010 7:15am

jason87, you should really check out your comments for accuracy and in this case, just check ExxonMobil’s website. Their annual statement shows they paid $78.8 billion in taxes in 2009. Also in error is your comment about subsidies. All businesses receive some government assistance which encourages them to do what the government wants. Businesses receive depreciation and depletion deductions, etc. US companies pay the highest tax rate in comparison to all foreign companies, 35%, so some deductions are necessary. Should the goverment give any deductions to any companies? Probably not but the oil companies are not given preferencial treatment.

PubliusfromGrave 06/22/2010 1:03pm

“THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEED OR THE PRESS” This is a factual excerpt from the First Amendment of Constitution of the United States of America, in case you haven’t read it lately. Nowadays ‘freedom of press’ would most certainly include the internet, and ‘anyone’ would still most certainly mean anyone. So why are these guys doing this? Because they are Democrats! www.publiusfromgrave.us

jason87 06/22/2010 7:15am
in reply to votedemint Jun 03, 2010 4:27am

“why shouldn’t the companies that create jobs and pay billions in taxes have a say in who should be elected that would allow them to have the flexibility to increase their business”

Our government has handed out $70 billion in oil subsidies (subsidies are as far from capitalism as it gets) in the past 8 years. ExxonMobil, one of the most profitable corporations on the planet, paid ZERO in income tax in the U.S. 2009. Ever wonder why it’s been so hard for this country to reduce its dependance on foreign oil? It’s mainly because of the money that oil companies spend on lobbying.

Situations like these are too common today and exist directly because of corporations’ ability to use their enourmous bank accounts to influence our political and economic policies.

joncollie 06/20/2010 12:11am
in reply to Foggy Jun 17, 2010 6:35am

@ Foggy

Don’t you love oversimplifications to incredibly complex events? You can’t reason with them, just let them tea bad each other.

peacefrog 06/19/2010 12:35pm

Great article, NukeET. I recommend reading it.

“…The NRA, which previously called the Citizens United decision a “defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us,” has apparently agreed to withdraw its opposition to the DISCLOSE Act in exchange for a narrowly drawn exemption. Instead of applying to all nonprofit advocacy groups, including the smaller, less powerful ones with limited budgets that will be particularly affected and burdened by these new regulations, the exemption will apply only to 501©(4) organizations with members in all 50 states, numbering more than one million overall, that have been in existence for ten years and receive 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. The NRA, a well-funded, powerful organization, coincidentally fits within this exemption. So the NRA has received its 30 pieces of silver in return for forsaking the political speech rights of the rest of us.”

NukeET 06/19/2010 6:19am

Perhaps one should actually READ THE BILL, and also The Heritage Foundation’s article about it here: http://blog.heritage.org/?p=36480

peacefrog 06/18/2010 6:15pm

This bill actually protects the larger organizations and would effectively silence and/or intimidate the voice of smaller grassroots organizations. They often make it sound like they’re fighting the ‘greed’ of big corporations when promoting these types of bills— reading the details of this particular bill however reveals that it does the opposite. If you really want to protect the little guy and oppose the establishment/lobbyist run/crony government then oppose this bill.

Nokwisa 06/17/2010 3:38pm
in reply to votedemint Jun 03, 2010 4:27am

Are private companies mentioned anywhere in the Constitution??? NO… All rights in voting for elected officials lies with the People! The People as individules. So would you have each plant vote who they would like to be elected to the office of _______ (you fill in the blank) Industry and Labor Unions go hand in hand at times to the benefit of all and at times NOT. I dont want any Industry nor Labor Union to do MY Voting for me. A certain industry only cares about what is good for IT not the Nation as a whole.

Foggy 06/17/2010 6:35am
in reply to TripFX21 Jun 16, 2010 8:01am

Actually the financial meltdown was much more complex than that, and it had much more to do with a culture of greed on wall street. The government played a role to be sure, but really, blaming it all on their policies towards Fanny and Freddy? Come on. And another thing: do yourself a favor and look up the definition of fascism.

kenthwing 06/16/2010 2:36pm

I find myself wondering how any of these restrictions on political speech line up with the clear verbiage of the first amendment which states “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” It doesn’t say that congress shall only make well crafted laws or anything like that. It says that congress shall make no law.
If all the law did was to make it clear who was doing the speaking, that would be one thing. Identifying yourself is not an abridgement. That is not all this law will do.

TripFX21 06/16/2010 8:01am

Businesses should have say, and there are already stipulations in place to limit their financial interest. The problem arises as lobbyists work in the loopholes of the system and allow for corruption from outside entities. All this bill does is force names to the surface of people and businesses operating outside the rules. This bill doesn’t close those loopholes and solve the problem.

And if we’re getting specific of a representatives roll, it isn’t do what’s right for the little ‘ol constituents. It’s to do what they’re told by their constituents. Thus the roll of public SERVANT. We The People are in charge of the government, not the other way around.

TripFX21 06/16/2010 8:01am
in reply to condor4120 Jun 07, 2010 10:19am

Actually the financial meltdown was led by government driven policies which were favorable to their pet companies such as Freddy, Franny, AIG etc… No where in the Constitution does it grant power to the Federal government to “guide” any business with exception of regulation of interstate trade, but even that is just a jurisdictional clause. Last I checked, the US government is the most bankrupt corporation in the entire world! Why would you trust a government that has bankrupt itself and every social program its ever created to know how to “guide” a business and tell it what’s in its best interest. Capitalism by definition is a market free of government control. Government involvement in the market is the very definition of FASCISM!

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Filtered Comment [ show ]

votedemint 06/03/2010 4:27am

I oppose this bill because FEDERAL LAW already bans foreign funds donated to campaigns. The Supreme Court’s ruling mostly focused on the provision that groups cant run ads within 60 days of election day. Obama and Democrats are restricting free speach with this bill. MOREOVER, why shouldn’t the companies that create jobs and pay billions in taxes have a say in who should be elected that would allow them to have the flexibility to increase their business, hire more people, and create more profits to reinvest in new companies and donate to community efforts. America is the only superpower BECAUSE of economic power and allowing private industry to voice what candidate they think will allow them to grow individually will result in a stronger U.S. economy as a whole. The Soviet Union didn’t have private industry (and restricted free speech) and look how well that worked out. Capitalism is a proven success and private industry can only survive IF they can work WITH government.


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