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 1-30 of 51 total comments.

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.

Spam Comment

MTeinert 07/13/2010 9:22pm
in reply to Lainie59 Jul 13, 2010 10:40am

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.

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.

Spam Comment

Peter510 07/12/2010 2:22pm
in reply to condor4120 Jun 07, 2010 10:19am

You need to take a course in economics. Totally unregulated Capitalism is not healthy but we have not had a true unregulated free market in a long, long time. But your statement has nothing to do with this particular legislation which is a sweetheart deal for the Unions, allowing them to mask their political contributions but forcing businesses to disclose their contributions. Businesses have the right and expectation of representation as they also pay taxes, or did you forget that? They are the major drivers of our economy and should have a right to help select the leaders of our country. If you want political contributions disclosed then EVERYONE, businesses, UNIONS, the NRA, all special interests should have to. No one should be excused from the requirement.

pramsey 06/29/2010 6:48am
in reply to ElizabethPC Jun 26, 2010 7:03am

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.

amfriedman 07/26/2010 2:55pm
in reply to Peter510 Jul 12, 2010 2:22pm

Can someone please cite the part of the bill that says unions are exempt from disclosing? I did a word search for “union” and it only came up once, where the bill put them in the same category as corporations, that they can now open floodgates of cash on our elections.

Also, let’s get our numbers straight: $45 billion versus $300 million. Which is bigger? How much bigger?

Exxon-Mobil made $45 BILLION in clear-cut PROFIT in 2008. In contrast, the AFL-CIO, our largest union, only took in about $300 million in GROSS REVENUE from their membership dues. So, one of our biggest corporations is at least 135 times more powerful than one of our largest unions.

You guys cheering for what you think is “free speech” is really showing you up as unknowing mouthpieces for an unbelievably powerful entrenchment in our midst. They’ve been running the show for decades, and here you are helping them crystallize their position of supremacy in our government.

amfriedman 07/26/2010 2:45pm
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 3:13pm
in reply to Foggy Jun 17, 2010 6:35am

Fascism (Wikipedia):
Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.1234 Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.56 Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s.78 Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.91011121314 Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.15

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.

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!

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.
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.

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.

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.

mwilbur137 08/03/2010 11:45am
in reply to LibertyPl0x Jun 24, 2010 7:16pm

…because civilization didn’t exist before capitalism. Nobody ever invented any new technologies, discovered any medicines, or did ANYTHING remotely beneficial without money as the primary motivator for the first 52,000 years of human existence?

amfriedman 08/22/2010 2:02pm
in reply to WhiteWolf1957 Jul 31, 2010 6:04pm

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!

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?

Spam Comment

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.

Lainie59 07/13/2010 10:40am
in reply to MTeinert Jun 30, 2010 12:48am

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

Spam Comment

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.

crispusattucks 07/07/2010 2:43am

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

blubugeye 08/21/2010 7:09am
in reply to kenthwing Jun 16, 2010 2:36pm

Does freedom of speech imply the right to anonymity while speaking?

Greenlander 09/22/2010 2:28pm
in reply to tumbleweed Jun 22, 2010 6:50pm

Yeah, they say they’re trying to provide transparency to political elections, but they’re really just trying to take your guns. You’re right.

Greenlander 09/22/2010 2:30pm
in reply to ElizabethPC Jun 26, 2010 7:03am

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


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