they vote to block the DISCLOSE bill? Republicans have been complaining about the lack of "transparency" in government and using that argument to insinuate sinister intentions of Obama and the Democrats.
Yet when provided with an opportunity to provide transparency in our elections, they voted to block the bill that would have required most organizations to disclose the sources of funding for their political ads.
http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/27/senate-republicans-block-disclose-act.html
Not only once, but twice, did they vote to block the bill.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/senate-republicans-again-block.html
It seems like a logical disconnect to me. Can someone explain the incongruity?
All opinions welcomed.
@cadcommando: The second link provides information that, "New restrictions would apply to corporations, UNIONS (emphasis added), trade associations, so-called 527 groups and 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) advocacy organizations."
Seems pretty across-the-board to me. There are orgs that donate to Repubs AND Dems that would have the new restrictions.
And again, the bill doesn't make donations "illegal". It only requires disclosing to the public where the money is coming from. I would like to think that's something both libs and cons could agree on; we want to see who's buying our politicians.
But I guess not.
Yet when provided with an opportunity to provide transparency in our elections, they voted to block the bill that would have required most organizations to disclose the sources of funding for their political ads.
http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/27/senate-republicans-block-disclose-act.html
Not only once, but twice, did they vote to block the bill.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/senate-republicans-again-block.html
It seems like a logical disconnect to me. Can someone explain the incongruity?
All opinions welcomed.
@cadcommando: The second link provides information that, "New restrictions would apply to corporations, UNIONS (emphasis added), trade associations, so-called 527 groups and 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) advocacy organizations."
Seems pretty across-the-board to me. There are orgs that donate to Repubs AND Dems that would have the new restrictions.
And again, the bill doesn't make donations "illegal". It only requires disclosing to the public where the money is coming from. I would like to think that's something both libs and cons could agree on; we want to see who's buying our politicians.
But I guess not.