2010-08-06T05:55:09Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/64093 2010-08-06T05:55:09Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-08-06:/comment/208889 fry3113 this is not true 2010-07-26T14:55:17Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-07-26:/comment/207874 amfriedman 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. 2010-06-24T19:16:56Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-06-24:/comment/199992 LibertyPl0x "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. 2010-07-07T02:43:49Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-07-07:/comment/203511 crispusattucks I oppose this bill. If fairness is what the Congress is after, why make special exemptions for unions? 2010-07-26T15:13:03Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-07-26:/comment/207879 amfriedman Fascism (Wikipedia): Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6] 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.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.[9][10][11][12][13][14] 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] ... 2010-08-21T07:09:51Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-08-21:/comment/209844 blubugeye Does freedom of speech imply the right to anonymity while speaking? 2010-08-22T14:02:27Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-08-22:/comment/209851 amfriedman 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! 2010-08-26T06:19:39Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-08-26:/comment/209980 ianiam Hmm...Where in the constitution..... 2010-07-13T10:34:45Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-07-13:/comment/204889 Lainie59 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. 2010-07-13T10:40:28Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-07-13:/comment/204891 Lainie59 You can access the Federal Elections Center and get information on who contributes to political candidates. 2010-07-13T21:22:17Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-07-13:/comment/205056 MTeinert 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. 2010-09-22T14:28:51Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-09-22:/comment/210811 Greenlander 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. 2010-09-22T14:30:23Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-09-22:/comment/210812 Greenlander He probably changed his mind one way or the other after some amendments were added - probably the one that exempts the NRA. 2010-09-22T14:33:31Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-09-22:/comment/210813 Greenlander In what way could that be trouble? 2010-06-03T04:27:35Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-06-03:/comment/197992 votedemint 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. 2010-06-03T04:27:35Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-06-03:/comment/197993 votedemint 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. 2010-06-16T08:01:41Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-06-16:/comment/198588 TripFX21 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. 2010-06-16T14:36:54Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-06-16:/comment/198661 kenthwing 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. 2010-06-19T06:19:38Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-06-19:/comment/199022 NukeET Perhaps one should actually READ THE BILL, and also The Heritage Foundation's article about it here: http://blog.heritage.org/?p=36480 2010-06-19T12:35:51Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-06-19:/comment/199060 peacefrog 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(c)(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."