« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Group Exempt from DISCLOSE Requirements Meets with DISCLOSE Lead Sponsor During Vote

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has had a lot to say about money in politics. As lead sponsor of the defeated DISCLOSE Act, he has made a firm stand against the special interests.

“The flawed Citizens United decision allows corporations, including international corporations, to use their vast wealth to drown out the voices of the American people…” (“Senators Introduce Constitutional Amendment to Clean Up Campaign Finance System,” Sheldon Whitehouse, 11/1/11)

“We must ensure that government works for the American people, not powerful corporations. The constitutional amendment we are introducing today will undo the Citizens United decision, putting people in charge as the Founders of our country intended.” (“Senators Introduce Constitutional Amendment to Clean Up Campaign Finance System,” Sheldon Whitehouse, 11/1/11)

“The extent to which money and corporations have taken over the [campaign] process is reflected across our cities in the Occupy movement,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), another co-sponsor. “It is something we have to do something about if we are going to reclaim American democracy as the shining light to other countries that it has always been.” (“Citizens United Going Down? Democrats Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Ruling,” Huffington Post, 11/1/11)

“The American people are making it clear that they’re fed up with a system that gives special treatment to special interests while middle-class families suffer.” (“Whitehouse: Let’s Shine a Light on Big Money in Politics,” Roll Call, 3/26/12)

“But as this election year marches on, with unprecedented spending by super PACs and other supposedly independent Big Money groups, it’s becoming clear that restoring fairness requires fixing our campaign finance system.” (“Whitehouse: Let’s Shine a Light on Big Money in Politics,” Roll Call, 3/26/12)

So when the big vote to end all this money in politics came about where was Sheldon Whitehouse? At a fundraiser event held by a 501(c)3 nonprofit which is not required to disclose donors and would even have been exempt from doing so had the DISCLOSE bill passed.

Whitehouse’s office said there’s nothing to see here:

Whitehouse was not raising money for his campaign this evening … He briefly stepped away from the Senate floor to drop by an event benefitting the Alliance for Health Reform, a non-profit, nonpartisan health policy organization.

It’s amusing how special interest groups like the Alliance for Health Reform, a group that supports Obamacare, somehow avoids the ire of Whitehouse and is described as nothing more than a “non-profit, nonpartisan health policy organization.” The only difference between Alliance and any organization that is targeted by Whitehouse, is that he agrees with their mission.

Of course he has another motive as well. It’s not protecting the people from the special interests. It’s protecting the legislators from the people.

During last night’s debate, Center for American Progress tweeted a quote from Whitehouse that was likely paraphrased from this interview with Sam Seder at Netroots Nation:

Under Citizens United, groups can threaten legislators with misleading, nasty, negative, anonymous ads.

Ultimately, the goal of people like Whitehouse, who is running for re-election against GOP Candidate, Barry Hinckley, is to silence his opponents, exempt his allies from scrutiny, and ensure that the people are prevented from holding him accountable.

Defeating the DISCLOSE Act yesterday goes a long way towards preventing that.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • libertariansoc

    The status quo?

    Are you for or against Citizens United?

    Because defeating anti-Citizens United bills and proposing no alternatives is a pro-Citizens United position.

    • Ben Howe

      That I’m pro-Citizens United.

    • becky5

      If you’re really a libertarian (as your screenname suggests) how could you possibly be against Citizens United?

      I don’t like all the money in politics, it’s used to buy access and influence, which breeds even more corruption.

      But…..the answer isn’t to let Congress define who does and doesn’t have the right to free speech. If we let that genie out of the bottle it will lead to disastrous consequences. Who else will be also be limited once they expand their authority (as they always do) into regulation of speech and determining what is ‘unacceptable’? 2A advocates (because guns are scary!)? I could easily see that law evolving into something that gives them authority to regulate “hate speech” as they do in Canada and Europe. Of course to Democrats “hate speech” means anything conservative/libertarian.

      The Constitution says all Americans have the right to free speech, and that includes everyone, even when we don’t like their motives.

      • aesthete

        Citizens United merely states that citizens do not forfeit their First Am rights by joining a corporation or a union. It was the obviously correct decision.

        • tnfriendofcoal101368

          Michael Kinsley who looks to his left and only see Lenin and Jane Fonda….

          It is my opinion that Roberts has some buyers remorse on Citizens United in that Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia dragged him from his original vary narrow opinion that the piece of McCain/Feingold that prevented the airing of the Hilliary Clinton documentary within 90 days of the election was unconstitutional to Kennedy’s more sweeping opinion that McCain-Feingold itself was unconstitiutional (Kennedy and Scalia in particular thought McCain-Feingold was poo).

          When I say buyers remorse, Roberts will never in his judgeship vote to reverse that decision but it will color his opinions in the future to more narrow opinions and he won’t be knocked off that pedestal as easily.

      • libertariansoc

        As you said, money in politics breeds corruption.

        All three branches have the ability, even the duty, to protect markets and our political process from corruption.

        The Government’s shouldn’t allow tyranny from the public sector or the private sector.

        WRT to free speech, it has never been unlimited and wasn’t intended to be. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          we could keep all campaign donations down to only individuals. that would mean no lobbyists, no corporations, no unions, no NGO’s. No nuthin.

          But it was purely a Marxist interpretation of campaign finance which said that Unions were able to do what ever they wanted, but corporations could not say anything in their own defense.

          • libertariansoc

            No PACs, SuperPACs, lobbyists or donations above $2500.

            What exactly were unions permitted to do that corporations (i.e. the Chamber of commerce) could not?
            I’ve noticed any differences in the law just that Unions are typically politically active and corporations are, by choice, usually not. It probably has something to do with no offending any potential customers.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            the Supremes struck down. The Democrats did not want companies putting out campaign adds, but had no problem with unions doing so.

        • becky5

          the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy. History is full of examples. Income taxes were never supposed to exceed 7%, and were only supposed to apply to multi-millionaires. Now we have 35% federal tax rates for incomes of $110k (and that doesn’t include Medicare & Soc Sec taxes). The Alternative Minimum Tax was sold to us as a way to prevent billionaires like the Rockefellers from sheltering all their income from taxes, but it now routinely ensnares middle class people. There are countless examples of slippery slopes.

          But the Citizens United case deals only with the part of special interest funds going to (mainly) advertising and other forms of “speech”. Stopping that would not in any way stop the bribing of our politicians. For example, it wouldn’t end promises of multi-million dollar jobs once politicians leave office. Other perks, like lavish junkets, preferential mortgages or providing well-paying jobs to spouses/children, would still exist. There will always be a way to bribe Congress & bureaucrats. Giving Congress broader power is not the answer.

          If you really want to end the corruption there is only one way to do it, and that’s to vote out the corrupt politicians. Unfortunately, not enough Americans are informed, or even care, about the issue. So the same hacks get elected time and time again, when the people have all the power to stop it, but don’t. That’s the real problem. Not enough people care. It’s also at the heart of the advertising problem. Those special interests pour millions into their ads because those ads work — and they only work because too many people are uninformed and easily swayed by them. They work on the ‘undecideds’, people who don’t know what they believe or why and make decisions on things such as “likeability”.

          I guess it just comes down to whether or not you trust corrupt politicians to fix the problem of corruption. I don’t. There’s no upside and lots of potential downside.

          If you read Scalia’s opinion on the ruling you may at least see the other side.

          Here is one of the most relevant points he makes:

          “The dissent says that when the Framers ?constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment , it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.? That is no doubt true. All the provisions of the Bill of Rights set forth the rights of individual men and women?not, for example, of trees or polar bears. But the individual person?s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons . Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of ?an individual American.? It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leadership of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association of individuals in a business corporation is no different?or at least it cannot be denied the right to speak on the simplistic ground that it is not ?an individual American.?

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZC1.html

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            I agree with your entire post.

          • libertariansoc

            It’s just allows you to introduce a strawman. In this case, no one wants to take up the argument that more special interest money and influence in our political system is good.

            In the second paragraph you argue reversing citizens united wouldn’t stop all forms of political corruption so it’s not worth doing. But we can’t stop any political corruption if you’re not willing to attack the issue gradually. I’d rather stop some political corruption than none at all.

          • funwithknives

            is short on specifics and expansive on things that might be, we, as a nation, get nowhere.

            Come up with specifics that can be fully documented and explained.
            Names, monies expended, and results ,verified.

            Then we go to work on These Examples, as legislation that addresses These Particular Items. Without riders or additions.
            {a k a : A Clean Bill}

            Oh and none of that GWB signing and if there’s a question,
            “…we let SCOTUS handle it…”. No more of that garbage…….

  • Pingback: Hisako Willes

  • Pingback: Gail Mulligan

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: Mining Technology

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: illicit spirits

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: portal randkowy za darmo

  • Pingback: wielu ludzi w jednym miejscu

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: surrealismart

  • Pingback: wedding planner italy

  • Pingback: alcoholic beverages

  • Pingback: Spyware

  • Pingback: Find Out More

  • Pingback: Browse This Site

  • Pingback: breastactives pills

  • Pingback: Sink for sale

  • Pingback: madamlux

  • Pingback: jobs working from home uk

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Jimmy Arcino

  • Pingback: Store Display Installations

  • Pingback: growing aloe vera

  • Pingback: cv

  • Pingback: curriculum vitae

  • Pingback: distillation

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: kids bikes