Senate GOP Filibusters DISCLOSE Act

If there's any question left at all where the Republicans stand on campaign finance reform or transparency, think no more.

Last night, Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader and resident Galapagos tortoise Mitch McConnell, voted against bringing a bill to the floor requiring disclosure of anyone who donates to independent groups that spent more than $10,000 on campaign ads.

Once the supposed leaders in campaign finance disclosure (remember John McCain?), not one, single Republican voted in favor of the ‘Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012’ or 'DISCLOSE' Act. Not even John McCain.

And what is wrong with wrong with disclosing who is behind the the financing of specific independent ads on either side of the political spectrum? According to a McConnell op-ed, he considers it "un-American." He believes it "punishes political enemies." How so if the bill is equally enforced towards ads supporting both parties? McConnell also says it's a First Amendment infringement on free speech. Well, if what you are financing is something you believe in, something you stand for, why would you be ashamed of attaching your name to it?

The truth of the matter is it has nothing to do with protecting free speech or punishing political enemies. Republicans are blocking a vote on this bill because the majority of anonymous money is funding anti-Obama ads. And for the last three years, the GOP has made it clear that their number one priority above all else is to make President Obama a one term president. If the roles were reversed and it were Romney who was in the crosshairs of most of the superPACS, I would posit that there would have been no such filibuster.

The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court overturned McCain-Feingold except for the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending. But how are we to know where the money is actually coming from to fund the superPACS when the donations are anonymous? This loophole could possibly allow foreign entities to play a role in our albeit fractured political campaign finance system. Whether or not this is the most important reason for disclosure is a conversation for another day (I think it should be a major reason), but I digress.

The fact remains that Republicans would rather have millions upon hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into the political process without any care as to where it came from. It's dangerous. It should stop. And maybe one day it will when it's the Republicans who are on the short end of the stick.

President Obama's Weekly Address - September 18, 2010

The Republican Corporate Power Grab

President Obama's Weekly Address - August 21, 2010

No Corporate Takeover of Our Democracy

David Brooks: Hack Of The Worst Kind

Dear Mr. Brooks,

Do I smell a bit of hypocrisy in your latest column, "The Two Obamas"?

Let's take each issue that you take offense with one at a time, and explain it so that even you can understand.

In your "column", you rail frantically against Senator Obama voting "present" while a member of the Illinois State Senate 130 times according to your count. I won't waste time looking for the actual number because it is irrelevant. Anyone bothering to look for an explanation can easily find one, such as this Republican State House leader coming to Obama's defense.

...Obama's former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama's opponents don't understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.

"To insinuate the 'present' vote means you're indecisive, that you don't have the courage to hold public office, that's a stretch. But, it's good politics," said state Rep. Bill Black (R), a 22-year veteran of the House and his party's floor leader.

In fact, he said, Illinois legislators get attacked for their "present" votes nearly every campaign season. "It's always been a campaign gimmick, really. If you vote 'present' once in 23 years, somebody will bring it up."

The "present" vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.

"The 'present' vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue," said state Rep. John Fritchey (D), an Obama supporter.

And since we're on the subject of not committing to vote for a bill, I'll be awaiting your article on why John McCain didn't bother show up to vote on the new GI Bill, one of the most important bills to come to the floor this year. You'd think that a former POW and veteran hero like McCain would do all he can to help our soldiers, I mean besides voting against a ban on waterboarding.

In your next statement, you claim that Barack Obama first stood by Rev. Wright and then later "threw [him] under the truck" only when it was politically convenient. Nowhere in your article does it state that he originally stood by him but denounced his inflammatory remarks. Nowhere in your article does it state that because of the controversy that the media perpetuated, he daringly gave a speech considered a third rail in politics, discussing the issue of race and racism in our country that was widely hailed as one of the most important political speeches in the last 40 years.

Only after Rev. Wright continued to fly off the handle, giving a speech at the National Press Club to promote his upcoming book, did Obama finally cut Wright loose; only after another controversial appearance by guest speaker Father Pfleger at Trinity United Church, did Obama decide to leave the church itself not only for his own sake, but to avoid further distraction that it was causing the congregation.

It was a lose-lose-lose situation for Obama. Either he defends Wright and gets lambasted by the right wing, or he denounces Wright's comments which isn't considered good enough by the wingnut pundits, or he disavows him altogether and is accused of throwing him "under the truck." Either he stays with his church and is ridiculed by the likes of you, or he leaves the church is accused of doing it for political convenience.

Next you throw in some stupid line about Obama not being a "workhorse senator" and throwing his duties "under the truck" (always with the truck). Yet you give no examples of what you may be talking about. As for me, I'll refer you to the example above regarding McCain's non GI Bill vote and I'll throw this little tidbit of information your way: Senator John McCain, as of this past May 17th had missed 43 straight votes in the Senate just this year alone. At that point, that equated to missing approximately 50% of the roll calls. Before you try and defend the fact that he's been on the campaign trail, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had only missed just 6.4 percent and 1.8 percent of votes this year, respectively. What a "workhorse" that John McCain, huh? Perhaps he was napping.

As for town hall meetings? Maybe Obama would accept if he knew that the audience was impartial and not vetted or invited by the McCain campaign.

Fox News: The McCain campaign said it was taking random questions from the audience of about 200 people. But the questions and mood were decidedly favorable, as his jabs at Obama were frequently interrupted by applause.

One questioner praised his military service; another called him a “hero.”

The campaign later issued a statement saying it distributed tickets to “supporters, Mayor Bloomberg, and other independent groups.”

What a maverick that McCain is!

But then, Mr. Brooks, you save the best for last: Accusing Barack Obama of flip-flopping and backing out of public financing. Oh no! The evil Obama deciding not to accept any taxpayer money (a "small government" conservative's dream by the way). Weak, David. Weak. Let's slow this down so you can see how ridiculous this argument is.

First, let's talk about what Senator Obama actually did say he would participate in. In his Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire, question 1-B asked: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing
system?"

So the operative phrase here is "if... your major opponents agree to forgo public financing..." Here is his full answer after checking the "yes" box:

"I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

You got that, Dave? "Senator McCain has already agreed to accept this fundraising pledge." The only problem is that Senator McCain has been raising and spending unlimited monies in violation of Federal Election Commission laws after opting in for public campaign funds through the primaries (which end with the convention), used that pledge to secure a bank loan, and then opted out of public financing. Something that the Republican Chairman of the Federal Elections Commission calls ILLEGAL.

...McCain's maneuvering seemed to irritate FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican, who wrote a letter to McCain in February saying McCain could only withdraw from public financing if he received the permission of the FEC and answered questions about the loan.

"The Commission made clear that a candidate enters into a binding contract with the Commission when he executes the Candidate Agreements and Certification," Mason wrote. "The Commission stated that it would withdraw a candidate's certifications upon written request, thus agreeing to rescind the contract, so long as the candidate: 1) had not received Matching Payment Program funds, and 2) had not pledged the certification of Matching Payment Program funds as 'security for private financing.'"

By the way, McCain was asked the same public financing question that Obama answered from the same organization and didn't bother to respond. Perhaps he was napping.

The fact is that McCain is gaming the system - first planning to opt out of public financing during the primaries. Then when fundraising got rough and he was out of cash, on August 10 McCain asked the Federal Election Commission for the authority to receive matching funds, and the FEC said he was eligible for $5.8 million. Although he never collected the money, he secured a $4 million line of credit with the agreement to reapply for federal matching funds if he withdrew from public financing and lost early primary contests. The agreement also held as collateral his list of contributors and a pledge by McCain to seek further cash from those donors to pay of the loan.

So cry all you want about Senator Obama opting out of public financing, or in actuality creating his own system of public financing without using one single dollar of taxpayer money. If the roles were reversed, no one would be batting an eye at the advantage of GOP coffers, but since the shoe is on the other foot, all we hear is whining from "pundits" with agendas.

I suppose that's why your columns are op-eds, Mr. Brooks. You may be entitled you your opinion, but you are certainly not entitled to your own facts.
*************************

I know the public financing fiasco is convoluted - here is Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman explaining it a lot better than I probably did.

Sirota: Duped By Sen. John McCain

I'll admit it: I used to admire John McCain.

To paraphrase the UFO poster from "The X Files," I wanted to believe.

Specifically, I wanted to believe the guy talking tough about campaign finance reform was committed to getting money out of politics. This was the Arizona senator who in 2002 taped a radio ad praising his state's "clean elections" system. It provides public money to candidates so they don't have to finance campaigns with corporate contributions - the kind given in exchange for legislative favors. McCain's support for clean elections, I thought, proved he wanted to end corruption.

But by the time the senator showed up here in Colorado last week for a fundraiser at Denver's Petroleum Club, I knew I had been duped.

As the Washington Post reports, McCain is now "assiduously courting both lobbyists and their wealthy clients, offering them private audiences as part of his fundraising." He has more lobbyists as fundraisers than any other White House contender, and he allows lobbyists to simultaneously work in his campaign and represent business clients. In fact, the Post reported that his chief adviser "said he does a lot of his [lobbying] work by telephone from McCain's Straight Talk Express bus."

Such antics have run that "Straight Talk Express" into the ditch of hypocrisy...

Read the entire article here.