In what way could that be trouble?

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

“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

“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.

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!

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

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.

“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.

this is not true

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.

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.

(See my comment below.)

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!!!

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.

“Culture of Greed”? Wall Street without greed would be a street you would never EVER want to invest a thing on; If the people there were not driven to make the most money possible, they would be failures as brokers and the whole street would be a financial district to be ashamed of. Greed did not destroy Wall Street, it created it. It is the essence of capitalism and the only reason anything ever gets done. People would not invent technologies, discover medicines, start businesses, or do anything else remotely beneficial if it were not for the money attached to it. There is not a person that would do their job if they had to work for free, and if anyone had a way to make more money doing their job, they would, and so does Wall Street.

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.

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?

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!

So what you are saying is private company’s should help choose who represents the People of the United States. Politicians represent the people of their district and not the business of that district. I think people get that confused. Politicians should do what is right for the people they represent. Capitalism does work but it must work but it must be guided by government to help all peoples of this country, otherwise you get the financial meltdown. Companies and their lobbyist have way to much control on the represents that are sent there to represent the people that elected them.

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.

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.