Both bills, the House and Senate version, have partisan sponsorship. Hmmmmm, wonder who this bill will benefit?

Why would anyone who is not currently in office or a corporate donor with an agenda be opposed to this bill?

It currently exempts unions.

And where does it do this? The House version of this bill makes exception for certain organizations based on size, age, and source of funding, but this version as introduced in the Senate contains no such exemption. Nither bill specifically exempts “unions”.

Please remember that there is currently more than one version of this bill and make sure you, and your sources are refering to the correct one.

Perhaps one should read the bill and also The Heritage Foundation’s article about here: http://blog.heritage.org/?p=36480

from http://blog.heritage.org/?p=36480 "The real effects of the DISCLOSE Act will be to deter political speech (including criticism of incumbents, such as its chief sponsors, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)) and political advocacy by corporations and associations that Democrats don’t want participating in the American political process. It includes both absolute bans on independent political advocacy and new, burdensome disclosure requirements. Schumer admitted when he introduced the bill that “the deterrent effect should not be underestimated.” During a House Administration Committee hearing, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) made no bones about the fact that he hoped this Act “chills out all . . . I have no problem whatsoever keeping everybody out [of elections]. If I could keep all outside entities out, I would.”

’nough said?

The article from heritage refers primarily to the House version of this bill which contains a clause exempting organizations such as the NRA based on size, age, and source of funding. This Senate version contains no such exemption.

Forbiding major government contractors, and organizations which are receiving financial aid from the government makes sense. Otherwise these organizations would in effect be using public funds to spend on such contributions.

Forbiding foreign organizations…. do I really need to cover this?

As for detering organizations, any organization which is detered simply by being required to stand behind their contributions clearly has something to hide, and as such, do we really want them to be contributing in the first place?

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank, meaning it reflects the interests of business and corporate concerns in relation to public policy. In other words, it is bias. Among its honorary board members was Margaret Thatcher, the brain behind privatizing the commons and deregulation we now generalize under the moniker of Reaganomics. To seriously consider the arguments of the Heritage Foundation is tantamount to taking serious those of Fox News or MoveOn.org – they are all serving a higher agenda than the public trust. We may as well ask the Klan for a fair and balanced whitepaper on the mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero in NY.