Not a SINGLE Republican votes for transparency

www.nytimes.com...

The Power of Anonymity

Two years ago, Congress came within a single Republican vote in the Senate of following the Supreme Court’s advice to require broad disclosure of campaign finance donors. The justices wanted voters to be able to decide for themselves “whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.”

The court advised such disclosure in its otherwise disastrous Citizens United decision in 2010, which loosed a new wave of unlimited spending on political campaigns. The decision’s anticorruption prescription has grown even more compelling as hundreds of millions of dollars in disguise have flooded the 2012 campaigns — a great deal of it washed through organizations that are set up for the particular purpose of hiding the names of the writers of enormous checks.

The ability to follow the money has never been this important since the bagman days of the Watergate scandal. But when the Democratic Senate majority made a fresh attempt to enact a disclosure bill on Monday, the measure was immediately filibustered to death by Republicans, like other versions.

...

Interesting how the rich/corporatists/plutocrats can buy state-sanctioned anonymity, the erasing of laws that police their dirty work, and essentially OUR elections in utter anonymity, yet groups like Anonymous are witch-hunted for their anonymity and their thankless black-hat CLEANING UP of the dirty work of the corrupt/tyrants/elites.

When your being bought off by foreigners and criminals the last thing you want is transparency. And they cry about Obama hiding info.

about Obama hiding info.

Its all a complex shell game to keep the masses always looking at the wrong issue, the wrong party...

They are all crooks, we have created a system where the crooks thrive, so of course government is filled with them.

Strict 2 term limits across every government position would help some, that with every financial detail of our public servants being disclosed would help (including who pays for all the little perks they like to take).

Originally posted by buster2010
When your being bought off by foreigners and criminals the last thing you want is transparency. And they cry about Obama hiding info.

How ironic... considering that Obama is fundraising over-seas... which is ILLEGAL!

And how about all of the transparency Obama promised? We STILL haven't seen a single recond from this man's past. Hypocrite much, or only in the forums??? Now THAT is irony!!!

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by buster2010
When your being bought off by foreigners and criminals the last thing you want is transparency. And they cry about Obama hiding info.

How ironic... considering that Obama is fundraising over-seas... which is ILLEGAL!

And how about all of the transparency Obama promised? We STILL haven't seen a single recond from this man's past. Hypocrite much, or only in the forums??? Now THAT is irony!!!

When is Willard going to release previous tax returns? I suppose you still don't believe President Obama was born in Hawaii Also, Romney will be fundraising on his trip to Israel.

reply to post by KireDj


Good question about Romney, I have no idea. Don't assume I support the man; I don't.

I have no idea where Obama was born and, ironically, neither do you!
I have no idea where Obama went to College and, ironically, neither do you!
I have no idea how Obama travelled to Pakistan and, ironically, neither do you!
I have no idea what kind of student Obama was, at any grade level, and ironically, neither do you!
I have no idea what Obama achieved in the Illinois Senate and, ironically, neither do you!

The reason you know none of these things is because there is ZERO record of any of them. No long-form Birth Certificate, no transcripts, no passport records, no senate records, no medical records. NOTHING!

In fact, his first executive act upon being sworn in was to seal all of those things!

So.......... any discussion regarding "Transparency" and the accompanying disparagement of the other side of the same coin comes across as disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst. Which one are you?

reply to post by kozmo


While I support vigorous debate, none of these allegations have any basis in truth.

Obama released his long form birth certificate earlier this year.

He was the Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review -- irrespective of specific grades that he received, especially when he was going to college in southern California. The selection process for the HLR is essentially that you first qualify by being ranked high enough in your class, then the outgoing members of the Law Review nominate their replacements. If his grades weren't good enough at one of the most competitive law schools in the nation -- graded blindly professors and on a curve, meaning no matter how brilliant the students in the class, only 20% can receive top grades -- he never would have been eligible for the HLR, much less be nominated and elected by his peers to serve as the chief of the organization.

Endorsing healthy skepticism does not mean endorsing an outright rejection of all external evidence. By this kind of logic, one could deny anything by simply not having been there. Its logically correct, I suppose, but also leads to an outright rejection of the external world; logical, but awfully lonely.

Obama's first Executive Order, 13489, *rescinded* EO 13233. 13233 limited public access to presidential records and was directed by none other than George W. Bush.

Your claim that 13489 somehow restricted public access to presidential records is patently false. I have no idea where you came up with that... One would have to be fairly imaginative to think 13489 has the exact opposite effect it actually does.

Despite this, um, creative thinking, you're correct that political positions are essentially a sham. The way finances operate in Congress -- completely opaque and administered by those who directly benefit from them -- is like the old analogy of the fox guarding the hen house. Except that the fox is actively participating in the design and construction of where the poultry is kept.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Even though the Dems and the GOP are two sides of the same coin, at least one makes some measure of effort to maintain a semblance of right-doing.

Voting down this measure -- nay, FILIBUSTERING it so it couldn't even get to a vote -- screams that these idiots want to keep hidden whatever it is they have to hide. Or, at least, want to continue sleeping on mountains of money while claiming they have no knowledge of its source. "It just appeared here. I swear!"

Originally posted by halincandenza
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Even though the Dems and the GOP are two sides of the same coin, at least one makes some measure of effort to maintain a semblance of right-doing.

By " at least one"you mean Ron Paul correct?

reply to post by NoHierarchy


First off, Why does the government want to know where all the political endorsements are coming from? Honestly, this transparency bill is NOT right. Who ever the PEOPLE want to endorse is their choice, not the governments. Now why don't they watch where corporate endorsements go to. That is what matters to me. (Just to clarify, a corporation consist of businesses like Walmart NOT a small businesses like your local fishing store.) Besides the CORPORATIONS are the ones who invest in other countries besides the US.

Republicans didn't vote for it and Democrats do not practice transparency either. Not since Nixon have we had a more non-transparent government.

Story Here

reply to post by NoHierarchy


This no doubt coming from a domecratic shill. (The most transparent presidency ever).
When will you realize this two party system is the probiblem. You are not part of the solution.

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by buster2010
When your being bought off by foreigners and criminals the last thing you want is transparency. And they cry about Obama hiding info.

How ironic... considering that Obama is fundraising over-seas... which is ILLEGAL!

And how about all of the transparency Obama promised? We STILL haven't seen a single recond from this man's past. Hypocrite much, or only in the forums??? Now THAT is irony!!!

Do you really need me to show the things Romney is hiding?

For transparency, among other reasons, campaign finance should consist of three rules:

1) Keeping a record of anyone who contributes $1 or more per month
2) Only people (adults - not corporations or unions) should be able to contribute
3) The amount that a person can contribute should be unlimited

Money does not buy elections – just ask Meg Whitman (who spent many of her own millions in a failed bid running for Governor of California).

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Had this not been another one of those inside the beltway politically motivated bitch slaps from the Democrats it might have gone somewhere...

Before you condem the Republicans and their vote you should check the voting record, which would have shown this to be a political stunt and nothing more by the Democrats..

First -

Its failure was widely expected, but Democrats pushed for the vote, believing that Republicans will be politically damaged by their opposition to bringing new transparency to campaigns. The vote could also serve to energize the Democratic base, which has been exercised over the role they believe secret corporate donations are playing in the campaign.

To press the point, bill sponsor Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), will lead Senate Democrats in a “midnight vigil” Monday night, with floor speeches scheduled into the early morning. The goal is to hammer Republicans for blocking the bill and push for another vote on the measure Tuesday.

and how did the Majority Leader of the Senate, good ole Harry Reid vote?

Formally, Reid voted against proceeding with the bill--a procedural tactic that will allow him to call the measure back up for another vote on Tuesday.

Apparently Reid is more concerned with politics and an election than being legitimately concerned about finance reform.


CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N ( No. 08-205 )

I find it humorous that the article attacks Republicans only when it was a Republican who co-sponsored the bill and pushed to get it passed in a bi-partisan manner.

When was this bill introduced? July 16th...
When was the first vote to be held? - July 16th
When is the follow up vote? - July 17th.

Yeah... no stunt there.. Only a few months before an election and Obama crying about being outspent while watching his donations drop. Do you not think there was politics behind this maneuver?

The Democrats had 2 years where they were in complete control of 2 branches out of 3. All of a sudden this is an issue, in an election year, when the Presidents poll numbers are sinking, donations are falling and it looks like Democratic donations are now heading to the Republicans.

I dont see Obama bending over backwards to release his financial documents for donors....
I have seen the IRS release tax documents listing donors for Republicans in what was an apparent "accident".
I see the Democrats demanding Romeny release more tax files and questioning his accounts with Debbie Wasserman-Shultz leading the charge, who in turn has her own off shore accounts...
They demand Romney be more transparent yet we still dont have a firm answer on Obamas Birth CErtificate not to mention his college transcripts...

This is nothing more than a head fake in order to pull the focus off Obama and to put it somewhere the Democrats are exploiting. People would see this if the MSM actually reported the news instead of involving themselves in creating it.

Hey it seems to work PERFECTLY for Obummer... all he campaigned about in 2008 was how TRANSPARENT and OPEN his administration would be... LOL. Blame Bush or the Tea Party for that! LOL!

Congress came within a single Republican vote in the Senate of following the Supreme Court’s advice

That means something completely different to "not a single Republican vote"... it means they came within one vote of doing it as the supreme court advised.

Now lets look at some hard figures shall we and see what the data tells us...

(House holds Holder in contempt)

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Ironic... 1 single vote... That means if Reid voted yes instead of no it would have passed then?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Ironic... 1 single vote... That means if Reid voted yes instead of no it would have passed then?

I assume so. Judging by what the article says all it needed was one more vote. The OP clearly didn't read it or interpret it properly. But it's not entirely his fault, the NY Times is putting a hardcore bias slant on it and trying to paint a picture which is essentially the opposite of what the truth is. That's the MSM for you... up is down to them, don't believe a word of the garbage they spew.