Sometimes politicians name their legislation the better to hide what they are trying to do. The name fails to disclose, you might say.
Consider the so-called DISCLOSE Act, which just passed the House of Representatives by a mostly party-line vote of 219 – 206 and is now awaiting action in the Senate. The full name of the monstrosity is the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act. It should be called the Democracy Is Undermined by Rigging the Game to Favor Incumbents and Especially Democrats Act.
The goal is to hamper political advertising by independent groups and corporations by requiring disclosure of the names of contributors who give above $600 a year. The new rules would harm corporations more than unions, and would foist anew some of the same burdens on First Amendment rights just overturned by the Supreme Court. The same court that threw out chunks of McCain-Feingold on free speech grounds would also likely find DISCLOSE unconstitutional.
But could the court do so before the 2010 elections? Democrats like Hank Johnson ― who told fellow partisans that the Act, if passed, would stop Republicans from being elected ― are betting that it can’t. Their hope is that with the speech-shackling new law skewing things in their favor until the high court acts, they’ll be more likely to escape political annihilation in November.
No, we can’t wait for the Supremes on this one. Call your senator.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
5 replies on “The Kill-Political-Discourse Act”
Living in CA., it’s a lost cause to complain about certain legislation to my senators, as they are liberals, hell-bent on keeping their power, and to hell with the constitution or anything that conservitives or ANY fair minded voter desires.
It’s a waste of time to call my senator. He’s one of the birds that believe in this kind of self serving legislation.
Usually, I’d agree that it’s a waste of time to contact your congressman or senator. That’s why rarely, if ever, do I suggest this course of action. Life is short, after all.
I don’t presume that you can change their vote, but here I think the purpose of the contact is to let them know we are watching their blatant attempt to game this year’s election.
To change our politics, to restore our Republic, requires a great deal more effort than calling a politician. But nonetheless, a phone call telling them you know their corrupt game, doesn’t hurt.
Why not allow disclosure of the names of contributors. I don’t see any problem with this.
We all know that corporations favor Republican candidates. Why not be open and honest and let us know who they are?
I love radeing these articles because they’re short but informative.