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.

Greenlander 09/22/2010 2:33pm
in reply to ryandsmith Jul 28, 2010 9:43am

In what way could that be trouble?

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

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.

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!

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?

amfriedman 07/26/2010 2:37pm
in reply to pramsey Jun 28, 2010 7:37am

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.

amfriedman 07/26/2010 3:16pm
in reply to Lainie59 Jul 13, 2010 10:34am

“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.

fry3113 08/06/2010 5:55am
in reply to votedemint Jun 03, 2010 4:27am

this is not true

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.

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.

peacefrog 07/31/2010 3:18pm
in reply to mike3 Jun 24, 2010 10:48pm

(See my comment below.)

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!!!

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.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

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.

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?

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!

Filtered Comment [ show ]

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.

Filtered Comment [ show ]


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