"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
(Thomas Jefferson)

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Why McCain and Others Voted Against Disclosure?

I am going to do a little speculating here today -- call it a hunch.  The amount of $10,000 is not that high to be worried about labor unions like McCain has stated.  Plus it wouldn't go into affect until January 2013 after this election has been bought and paid for by the Republican big donors.  In fact the bill didn't say donations were cut off at $10,000, it was to disclose the names of anyone donating over $10,000 to a 501c4 or a 501c6 group which seems legitimate to me.  When I read the bill, these comments make no sense unless ...
But Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., once the leading Republican on campaign disclosure and donor limits, said in a statement he opposed the bill because it was designed to give an advantage to the Democrats and their labor union allies. 
“By conveniently setting high thresholds for reporting requirements, the DISCLOSE Act forces some entities to inform the public about the origins of their financial support, while allowing others – most notably those affiliated with organized labor – to fly below the Federal Election Commission’s regulatory radar,” he said in a statement. 
Sen McCain is already on the record saying there are going to be problems with the amount of foreign money in this election.  Adelson is the perfect example of what McCain is saying with his (Adelson's) McCau gambling operation where he is under investigation for bribes in order to get the gambling operation set up and keep all the venues.  Doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is something there when you read the facts.  That money he makes in McCau is allowing him to donate as many millions as necessary to win this election.  What is his point?  Romney wins and the investigation goes away with a new Attorney General?  Is that why Cong Issa and the House voted to hold Eric Holder in contempt when he was working with Issa to release documents?  Was it to harm his credibility and stop further investigations by the DOJ?

Then there is the NRA threatening Senators who vote for the disclose act.  There are Republican Senators who could care less what the NRA says but there are also some in their hip pocket which I would assume would start with the Minority Leader McConnell.

What if others like McCain voted against this bill so that next January the outcry against the 17 wealthy white men donors who are remaining in the shadows as huge donors except for the Koch Brothers and Adelson is so great that we get complete Campaign Finance Reform (CFR)?   When you have over 80% of donations coming from a group of wealthy people, you have a major problem on your hands.  Is that what this vote against the bill by McCain, Coburn, Lindsey Graham and others is all about so that public gets so mad that both parties agree in January that excessive dollars like we are seeing this year need out of politics for good and a Constitutional CFR comes out of the mix?   Do I think McCain and people like Coburn would do that?  Absolutely!

Obama started this when he decided not to take federal matching dollars in 2008 and Soros dollars flooded the campaign which Republicans called out as being wrong, unethical, and wondered if they were illegal donations.  Now Republicans have taken it to a new low in 2012 thanks in part to the SCOTUS bad ruling making a business a person and opening up unlimited donations to Super PACS.  People don't give these kind of millions unless they want something in return.  Adelson is not the most honest guy and neither are the Koch Brothers.

Have some Republican members of Congress sold out to the big donors this time?  Adelson just gave Young Guns PAC run by Eric Cantor $5 million.  Now the question is if Cantor is going to use that money for HIS campaign since he is in trouble in Virginia?  He used other donations in that PAC to give to other organizations wanting incumbents out including Republicans.  He is running the Young Guns PAC as his slush fund which is not what most donors thought when they donated to his PAC -- they thought it was for new candidates not for Cantor to use at will.

Ten years ago Republicans wanted full disclosure of every penny, but today they vote together against this bill requiring transparency of donations over $10,000?  Yet the leadership wonders why a lot of Republicans like me have had it with the hostile takeover of the Republican Party where some are acting like the little kid in the candy store with the huge donors and the massive dollars they are donating.  This is one Republican who has not changed her beliefs but has taken off the blinders that Republicans are always right.  Started in 2008 with the opposition research on Romney as a candidate.  I couldn't believe that he ran this time knowing full well the research was there but his arrogance and his wife's urging got in the way of common sense.  Is he doing this to fulfill a Mormon prophecy about a Mormon in the White House.

What are Republicans hiding about the big donors?  I cannot believe I am not typing Democrats but the Party I considered ethical is no more.  The Party of Reagan has been shoved under the bus to make way for the Party of Greed led by Mitt Romney who has trouble telling the truth.  Fox News yesterday morning edited a portion of Obama's speech to make him look bad,  Limbaugh wants Romney to throw every racial stereotype he can find at Obama, House and Senate stall bills that would add jobs, and now the Republican Senators vote against transparency.

What has happened to a Party I grew up with who now could care less about the Middle Class?  All Republican leadership seems to care about today is ousting Obama and will lie, cheat, and steal to get him out of the White House as we are witnessing.  Thirty-three times the House has passed repeal bills for the Affordable Care Act without having a replacement when they call for Repeal and Replace.  When you do the opposition research and discover the lies being told by Republicans and their pundits to foster hate, it stops you dead in the tracks and you start asking "Why am I a Republican Today?"

I am one of those people when the Democrats do something that is unethical I get mad, but when my Party does the same thing and takes to a new low level, it makes me even madder as I expect more out of Republicans.  Now I have learned my lesson -- I expect nothing out of this unethical group that leads Republicans today who don't have the best interests of America at heart or they would have told Romney to get lost when he declared that if people saw his plans for America that he never would get elected.

Now the Republicans in the Senate vote against transparency?  WHY?
Senate blocks action on disclosure of hidden donorsBy Tom Curry, NBCPolitics.com National Affairs Writer 
In a mostly symbolic vote that split along party lines, the Senate on Monday night blocked consideration of a Democratic-sponsored bill to force disclosure of contributions to tax-exempt groups, corporations and unions which engage in political spending. 
The bill fell nine votes short of the 60 it needed to move ahead to debate and final passage.
Donors to tax-exempt 501c4 and 501c6 groups aren’t required to be identified publicly; this cloak of secrecy has encouraged some contributors who might fear publicity to invest heavily in trying to influence voters through TV ads. 
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D- R.I., would require any donor who gave $10,000 or more to a 501c4 group that spent money on political advertising to be identified and disclosed. 
It would not have taken effect until after the 2012 election. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D - Ore., a co-sponsor of the bill said in an interview right before the vote, “We did that deliberately to take this campaign season out of it. We tried to take every objection we heard and strip this down to pure disclosure: any donation over $10,000, you disclose, straight and simple, no matter where it comes from.” 
He said, “If it passed, even though it wouldn’t take effect until January, people would say, ‘well at least the principle is broadly supported.' If it doesn’t pass, it may mobilize folks on the issue and say, ‘well let’s make it a campaign issue, let's see where people stand.’” 
According to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity, 501c4s spent nearly $95 million in the 2010 campaign. 
Monday night’s vote was formal confirmation that Congress won’t rein in donors to such tax-exempt groups, at least until 2013 and perhaps not even then. Democratic leaders must now hope that Democratic donors step up and try to match Republicans in their giving to Democratic tax-exempt groups. 
The 501c4 and 501c6 groups were given new freedom to run ads by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 and by FEC rulings. 
Lisa Rosenberg, a government affairs consultant with the Sunlight Foundation, a group that supports fuller disclosure of campaign spending, said, “It may take until after the election to see the real damage that was done and to see the corrupting influence of this money on the political process -- and perhaps that will reinvigorate the debate for the next time.”

No comments: