If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Republicans join the movement to drag dark money into the daylight   (motherjones.com) divider line 59
    More: Spiffy, Republican, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Ron Wyden, paper company, DISCLOSE Act, Lisa Murkowski, Americans for Tax Reform, D-Ore  
•       •       •

2101 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Dec 2012 at 12:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-31 12:06:20 PM
Go, Lisa!

Money shouldn't be able to buy a Senate seat. You should have it given to your father, the old fashioned way.
 
2012-12-31 12:30:17 PM
thepoliticalcarnival.net

"I TOLD you that biatch would be bad for America!"
 
2012-12-31 12:31:53 PM
Ham rove is tasty.jpeg
 
2012-12-31 12:32:19 PM
Definition of grandstanding right there.
 
2012-12-31 12:32:19 PM
Dear Mitch,

I recently moved back to Kentucky, I'm almost eager for the day I get to vote against you.
 
2012-12-31 12:33:19 PM
The 2012 election demonstrates that the Citizens United ruling is not the end of our Republic. This law is unnecessary, imho.
 
2012-12-31 12:33:50 PM
Soo....Murkowski was against it before she was for it. I wonder what changed her mind.

And subby, the article only lists one Republican in favor of such a measure. Here. I'll fix your title for you:

"Republican joins movement to drag money into daylight after previously voting against a nearly identical measure"
 
2012-12-31 12:34:56 PM
Fark yeah! You wanna donate to political campaigns and causes the people should be in the know.

/Unless you have something to hide...
 
2012-12-31 12:35:39 PM
I've always said there are certain reforms that both Liberals and Conservatives should be able to support equally. The fact that the political parties would rather fight about other things should tell us something.

republic.lessig.org
 
2012-12-31 12:35:53 PM
Again, it should not require 60% to pass a bill. Fix that first. If there are 51 votes, it should pass.
 
2012-12-31 12:35:58 PM

Phil McKraken: The 2012 election demonstrates that the Citizens United ruling is not the end of our Republic. This law is unnecessary, imho.


Yes. There appears to be no influence of special interests on our politics anymore.
 
2012-12-31 12:36:11 PM
If we want to solve a lot of problems in this country we must:
End Lobbying
Publicly fund elections. Give each candidate that meets a certain criteria (meaning open things up for third party candidates too) a small amount of money that they can use to buy advertising. Also, have the FCC mandate that the networks using OUR airwaves designate a set amount of time for each candidate. All other political advertising will be illegal. Corporations are not people, and therefore cannot donate to candidates.
Open the debates to third party candidates.
End the Electoral College.
 
2012-12-31 12:36:43 PM
Republicans?

Who else, subby?
 
2012-12-31 12:37:35 PM

Girion47: Dear Mitch,

I recently moved back to Kentucky, I'm almost eager for the day I get to vote against you.


same. I'd vote for judd in a second, but really, anyone who isn't the turtle. hell, I'd vote for an actual turtle.
 
2012-12-31 12:38:10 PM
I seriously don't think we should be referring to Obama like that.

/Why yes, I will be in the pilot's seat, thanks for asking.
 
2012-12-31 12:38:19 PM

Parthenogenetic: "I TOLD you that biatch would be bad for America!"


*gets out decoder ring*

Hey - "bad for America" means "good for America." I'll be darned.
 
2012-12-31 12:39:31 PM

Phil McKraken: The 2012 election demonstrates that the Citizens United ruling is not the end of our Republic. This law is unnecessary, imho.


In the same way that Gabrielle Gifford's survival demonstrates that there's nothing inherently wrong with being shot in the head.
 
2012-12-31 12:42:19 PM
That just means there is a new and better way to donate money to a campaign without anyone knowing your name.
 
2012-12-31 12:43:32 PM

SuburbanCowboy: If we want to solve a lot of problems in this country we must:
• End Lobbying
• Publicly fund elections. Give each candidate that meets a certain criteria (meaning open things up for third party candidates too) a small amount of money that they can use to buy advertising. Also, have the FCC mandate that the networks using OUR airwaves designate a set amount of time for each candidate. All other political advertising will be illegal. Corporations are not people, and therefore cannot donate to candidates.
• Open the debates to third party candidates.
• End the Electoral College.
End gerrymandered districts.


Good list, I just wanted to add one.
 
2012-12-31 12:44:08 PM

SuperT: same. I'd vote for judd in a second, but really, anyone who isn't the turtle. hell, I'd vote for an actual turtle.


Girion47: Dear Mitch,

I recently moved back to Kentucky, I'm almost eager for the day I get to vote against you.


Not to be the wet blanket, but the majority of Kentucky's voters are "creationism theme park" stupid. I've always voted against Moneybags Mitch, and will continue to do so, but I'm slowly becoming resigned to the fact that I might have to eventually settle for a good grave pissing.
 
2012-12-31 12:45:12 PM
slacktory.com
go on...
 
2012-12-31 12:45:14 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Phil McKraken: The 2012 election demonstrates that the Citizens United ruling is not the end of our Republic. This law is unnecessary, imho.

Yes. There appears to be no influence of special interests on our politics anymore.


I would agree that their is a problem that was made worse by Citizens United, but why would we ever have the goal of eliminating all influence of special interests on politics? There are a lot of special interest groups I would like to see have MORE success in influencing government.

Put another way: What is it about disagreeing with someone else's interests that make them so special?
 
2012-12-31 12:46:26 PM
I thought Murkowski ran as an independent after she got primaried... oh well.
 
2012-12-31 12:47:57 PM
Wow you mean a republican said they were for something and then voted no on the thing they said they supported. Sorry guys these is not "breaking ranks" it's what they do to get re-elected. Scott brown did this all the time he voted with the GOP on many isuess he said he opposes them on.

It's BS don't get duped. If the GOP tells her to vote no again she will find some new issue with the new bill.
 
2012-12-31 12:48:44 PM

Arkanaut: I thought Murkowski ran as an independent after she got primaried... oh well.


She's a registered Fark Independent.
 
2012-12-31 12:49:24 PM

Girion47: Dear Mitch,

I recently moved back to Kentucky, I'm almost eager for the day I get to vote against you.


Anyone think the next step could be paying people to flood a voting district? Would be expensive but looking at the amounts of money flowing into races from out of state donors, why not just do a temporary relo on a bunch of Koch Bros employees, tilt the balance in the election and move'em all out again.
 
2012-12-31 12:51:50 PM
So McConnell says that this is bad because forcing disclosure would have a "chilling effect" on political donations. I can accept this sort of argument for nondisclosure of things like library books. I might read Mein Kampf out if curiosity or research, but it might give people the wring impression of me, even though I've done nothing wrong. But how can that argument work for political donation? By giving money you are espousing a position. I can't think of an analogous scenario in which knowing who believes in certain positions hurts the Democratic process or individual liberty.
 
2012-12-31 12:52:15 PM

thurstonxhowell: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Phil McKraken: The 2012 election demonstrates that the Citizens United ruling is not the end of our Republic. This law is unnecessary, imho.

Yes. There appears to be no influence of special interests on our politics anymore.

I would agree that their is a problem that was made worse by Citizens United, but why would we ever have the goal of eliminating all influence of special interests on politics? There are a lot of special interest groups I would like to see have MORE success in influencing government.

Put another way: What is it about disagreeing with someone else's interests that make them so special?


I think I see what you're saying. The key to the disagreement of Citizens United is the influence of special interests is determined by money not people. How influential you are is directly proportional to the amount of cash you have. Citizens United verified that rich people deserve to be heard more politically.

The power of a special interest group should be directly proportional to the number of supporting members, not the amount of money it has.
 
2012-12-31 12:54:14 PM

Corvus: Wow you mean a republican said they were for something and then voted no on the thing they said they supported. Sorry guys these is not "breaking ranks" it's what they do to get re-elected. Scott brown did this all the time he voted with the GOP on many isuess he said he opposes them on.

It's BS don't get duped. If the GOP tells her to vote no again she will find some new issue with the new bill.


The difference is that she's sponsoring this one. Senators don't usually vote against their own bills - and when they do, it's because the committees hacked them to pieces (or the sponsor claims they did for political cover after going out on a wing without leadership's blessing, right Mr. McCain?).

Not that more conservatives on board is a bad thing, but Merk Mursk Murkw Lisa is kind of persona-non-grata with the GOP faithful. Having her on board doesn't make this a slam dunk anyway. Even if right now, it's just support-in-name-only, it means significant (read: non-derpy) portions of registered Republicans feel the same way.
 
2012-12-31 12:57:57 PM

monoski: Girion47: Dear Mitch,

I recently moved back to Kentucky, I'm almost eager for the day I get to vote against you.

Anyone think the next step could be paying people to flood a voting district? Would be expensive but looking at the amounts of money flowing into races from out of state donors, why not just do a temporary relo on a bunch of Koch Bros employees, tilt the balance in the election and move'em all out again.


I'm looking forwards to gerrymandered states. Greetings from East Louisiarklahoma!
 
2012-12-31 12:57:58 PM

nmrsnr: So McConnell says that this is bad because forcing disclosure would have a "chilling effect" on political donations. I can accept this sort of argument for nondisclosure of things like library books. I might read Mein Kampf out if curiosity or research, but it might give people the wring impression of me, even though I've done nothing wrong. But how can that argument work for political donation? By giving money you are espousing a position. I can't think of an analogous scenario in which knowing who believes in certain positions hurts the Democratic process or individual liberty.


If you believe people, or the government, would persecute or harm you due to your beliefs then you would be less likely donate. I'm not sure I'm convinced by the argument but there's precedent - membership in the NAACP was published for a while and people were beaten for it.
 
2012-12-31 12:58:46 PM

Phil McKraken: The 2012 election demonstrates that the Citizens United ruling is not the end of our Republic. This law is unnecessary, imho.


In the end, Obama + his PACs outraised Romney + his PACs. The fact that the guy who primarily used the open method beat the guy who primarily used the secret method doesn't mean that the secret method isn't toxic to having a fair electoral funding system.
 
2012-12-31 12:59:00 PM

lennavan: thurstonxhowell: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Phil McKraken: The 2012 election demonstrates that the Citizens United ruling is not the end of our Republic. This law is unnecessary, imho.

Yes. There appears to be no influence of special interests on our politics anymore.

I would agree that their is a problem that was made worse by Citizens United, but why would we ever have the goal of eliminating all influence of special interests on politics? There are a lot of special interest groups I would like to see have MORE success in influencing government.

Put another way: What is it about disagreeing with someone else's interests that make them so special?

I think I see what you're saying. The key to the disagreement of Citizens United is the influence of special interests is determined by money not people. How influential you are is directly proportional to the amount of cash you have. Citizens United verified that rich people deserve to be heard more politically.

The power of a special interest group should be directly proportional to the number of supporting members, not the amount of money it has.


That's precisely why I support the Patriot Dollars/Democracy Voucher proposal. It's a much more democratic way of handling election funding. If you can convince 5,000,000 regular people to give you $50 each, to me, that means a hell of a lot more to me than if you can convince 10 Daddy Warbucks figures to give you $25,000,000 each.
 
2012-12-31 12:59:44 PM

EyeballKid: SuperT: same. I'd vote for judd in a second, but really, anyone who isn't the turtle. hell, I'd vote for an actual turtle.

Girion47: Dear Mitch,

I recently moved back to Kentucky, I'm almost eager for the day I get to vote against you.

Not to be the wet blanket, but the majority of Kentucky's voters are "creationism theme park" stupid. I've always voted against Moneybags Mitch, and will continue to do so, but I'm slowly becoming resigned to the fact that I might have to eventually settle for a good grave pissing.


Yup but I'll still vote against him even as a weak ass protest vote,one that I have to walk 6 miles to do but it's worth it.
 
2012-12-31 01:00:00 PM

Hickory-smoked: Phil McKraken: The 2012 election demonstrates that the Citizens United ruling is not the end of our Republic. This law is unnecessary, imho.

In the same way that Gabrielle Gifford's survival demonstrates that there's nothing inherently wrong with being shot in the head.


Yowch. I don't know who that's more of a burn on - Phil, Giffords, or America.

winterbraid: [slacktory.com image 600x200]
go on...


Ceci n'est pas une trappe,
 
2012-12-31 01:00:41 PM

Dr Dreidel: Corvus: Wow you mean a republican said they were for something and then voted no on the thing they said they supported. Sorry guys these is not "breaking ranks" it's what they do to get re-elected. Scott brown did this all the time he voted with the GOP on many isuess he said he opposes them on.

It's BS don't get duped. If the GOP tells her to vote no again she will find some new issue with the new bill.

The difference is that she's sponsoring this one. Senators don't usually vote against their own bills - and when they do, it's because the committees hacked them to pieces (or the sponsor claims they did for political cover after going out on a wing without leadership's blessing, right Mr. McCain?).

Not that more conservatives on board is a bad thing, but Merk Mursk Murkw Lisa is kind of persona-non-grata with the GOP faithful. Having her on board doesn't make this a slam dunk anyway. Even if right now, it's just support-in-name-only, it means significant (read: non-derpy) portions of registered Republicans feel the same way.


This was most likely what you are getting at but specifically, Lisa may have an (R) next to her name, but she was elected as a write-in independent because she lost the primary election. I imagine she doesn't feel a ton of loyalty to her party, nor does she feel a ton of pressure, given she was able to win as a write-in candidate. Especially with that last name.
 
2012-12-31 01:01:32 PM

TFerWannaBe: nmrsnr: So McConnell says that this is bad because forcing disclosure would have a "chilling effect" on political donations. I can accept this sort of argument for nondisclosure of things like library books. I might read Mein Kampf out if curiosity or research, but it might give people the wring impression of me, even though I've done nothing wrong. But how can that argument work for political donation? By giving money you are espousing a position. I can't think of an analogous scenario in which knowing who believes in certain positions hurts the Democratic process or individual liberty.

If you believe people, or the government, would persecute or harm you due to your beliefs then you would be less likely donate. I'm not sure I'm convinced by the argument but there's precedent - membership in the NAACP was published for a while and people were beaten for it.


But that is expressly illegal. If you believe that the government is corrupt enough to break its free association doctrine, nominal anonymity isn't really great protection.
 
2012-12-31 01:02:07 PM

Dr Dreidel: Corvus: Wow you mean a republican said they were for something and then voted no on the thing they said they supported. Sorry guys these is not "breaking ranks" it's what they do to get re-elected. Scott brown did this all the time he voted with the GOP on many isuess he said he opposes them on.

It's BS don't get duped. If the GOP tells her to vote no again she will find some new issue with the new bill.

The difference is that she's sponsoring this one. Senators don't usually vote against their own bills - and when they do, it's because the committees hacked them to pieces (or the sponsor claims they did for political cover after going out on a wing without leadership's blessing, right Mr. McCain?).

Not that more conservatives on board is a bad thing, but Merk Mursk Murkw Lisa is kind of persona-non-grata with the GOP faithful. Having her on board doesn't make this a slam dunk anyway. Even if right now, it's just support-in-name-only, it means significant (read: non-derpy) portions of registered Republicans feel the same way.


Has it passed? What does it say? It looks already that tons of loopholes are being added that any one with money can get around and she's not even done with it.
 
2012-12-31 01:04:05 PM
Murkowski is still pissed about that Joe Thomas thing from a few years ago, I see. Republicans even tick off their own party members.
 
2012-12-31 01:04:14 PM

EyeballKid: SuperT: same. I'd vote for judd in a second, but really, anyone who isn't the turtle. hell, I'd vote for an actual turtle.

Girion47: Dear Mitch,

I recently moved back to Kentucky, I'm almost eager for the day I get to vote against you.

Not to be the wet blanket, but the majority of Kentucky's voters are "creationism theme park" stupid. I've always voted against Moneybags Mitch, and will continue to do so, but I'm slowly becoming resigned to the fact that I might have to eventually settle for a good grave pissing.


There seems to be a pretty strong anti-Mitch sentiment growing in our state. He doesn't do anything for us. He's elected, he runs off to DC to hang out in his 3 offices. (Hart, Capitol, Capitol basement) and only flies back so that John Schnatter can parade him around the Yum Center or Cardinal Stadium.
 
2012-12-31 01:12:14 PM

Dr Dreidel: Corvus: Wow you mean a republican said they were for something and then voted no on the thing they said they supported. Sorry guys these is not "breaking ranks" it's what they do to get re-elected. Scott brown did this all the time he voted with the GOP on many isuess he said he opposes them on.

It's BS don't get duped. If the GOP tells her to vote no again she will find some new issue with the new bill.

The difference is that she's sponsoring this one. Senators don't usually vote against their own bills - and when they do, it's because the committees hacked them to pieces (or the sponsor claims they did for political cover after going out on a wing without leadership's blessing, right Mr. McCain?).

Not that more conservatives on board is a bad thing, but Merk Mursk Murkw Lisa is kind of persona-non-grata with the GOP faithful. Having her on board doesn't make this a slam dunk anyway. Even if right now, it's just support-in-name-only, it means significant (read: non-derpy) portions of registered Republicans feel the same way.


This is true, but keep in mind what the Senate is going to look like next year. There will be 55 Democratic caucus members. I'd lay money that each of them would support this proposal. With Murkowski, that's 56. I can see McCain getting on board with this with maybe minor adjustments, so that would be 57. The last three votes to break cloture would be much harder to get, but I have to think that some of them would break eventually, and who knows what the filibuster will look like next year?

And if it passes the Senate, there will inevitably be some pressure on the House to pass the bill since not passing it would mean trying to help the rich people that gave them hundreds of millions of dollars in the last election cycle (that we know of).
 
2012-12-31 01:15:17 PM

nmrsnr: TFerWannaBe: nmrsnr: So McConnell says that this is bad because forcing disclosure would have a "chilling effect" on political donations. I can accept this sort of argument for nondisclosure of things like library books. I might read Mein Kampf out if curiosity or research, but it might give people the wring impression of me, even though I've done nothing wrong. But how can that argument work for political donation? By giving money you are espousing a position. I can't think of an analogous scenario in which knowing who believes in certain positions hurts the Democratic process or individual liberty.

If you believe people, or the government, would persecute or harm you due to your beliefs then you would be less likely donate. I'm not sure I'm convinced by the argument but there's precedent - membership in the NAACP was published for a while and people were beaten for it.

But that is expressly illegal. If you believe that the government is corrupt enough to break its free association doctrine, nominal anonymity isn't really great protection.


Persecution can take many forms and is sometimes very easy to mask. One could blacklist contractors or employees due to their political donations and claim the disassociation is for other reasons. It's illegal but it's extremely difficult to prove if the blacklist remains secret. Also, knowing that beating someone up is illegal is small comfort to someone being beaten up for contributing to their favorite political cause.

Regarding fear of persecution by the government, keep in mind that our government has created, maintained, and acted on lists of political dissidents in the not-too-distant past. As you say, the people who are afraid of governmental abuse of their loss of anonymity probably also fear that the government may change the laws to suit its purposes, or ignore them when convenient. Publishing lists of (otherwise) anonymous donations makes it easier for the government to oppress.

(One of the reasons I'm unimpressed by the argument is that it quickly devolves into conspiracy theories.)
 
2012-12-31 01:18:25 PM

TFerWannaBe: nmrsnr: TFerWannaBe: nmrsnr: So McConnell says that this is bad because forcing disclosure would have a "chilling effect" on political donations. I can accept this sort of argument for nondisclosure of things like library books. I might read Mein Kampf out if curiosity or research, but it might give people the wring impression of me, even though I've done nothing wrong. But how can that argument work for political donation? By giving money you are espousing a position. I can't think of an analogous scenario in which knowing who believes in certain positions hurts the Democratic process or individual liberty.

If you believe people, or the government, would persecute or harm you due to your beliefs then you would be less likely donate. I'm not sure I'm convinced by the argument but there's precedent - membership in the NAACP was published for a while and people were beaten for it.

But that is expressly illegal. If you believe that the government is corrupt enough to break its free association doctrine, nominal anonymity isn't really great protection.

Persecution can take many forms and is sometimes very easy to mask. One could blacklist contractors or employees due to their political donations and claim the disassociation is for other reasons. It's illegal but it's extremely difficult to prove if the blacklist remains secret. Also, knowing that beating someone up is illegal is small comfort to someone being beaten up for contributing to their favorite political cause.

Regarding fear of persecution by the government, keep in mind that our government has created, maintained, and acted on lists of political dissidents in the not-too-distant past. As you say, the people who are afraid of governmental abuse of their loss of anonymity probably also fear that the government may change the laws to suit its purposes, or ignore them when convenient. Publishing lists of (otherwise) anonymous donations makes it easier for the government to oppress.

(One of the reasons I'm un ...


The people who want anonymity the most also want the most influence over our government. Why should we let Sheldon Adelson spend $200 million completely in the dark from the rest of us when the people he is donating to know for certain that he's given them that enormous sum of money?
 
2012-12-31 01:21:30 PM

Corvus: Has it passed? What does it say? It looks already that tons of loopholes are being added that any one with money can get around and she's not even done with it.


That's my point, stated in the converse. She's working with Wyden to draft a bill. That bill will have to go to committee, which takes it out of her hands - even if she sits on that committee, she's only one vote of 5, or 7, or 21, or whatever.

There are some "loopholes" that will be written into the bill (some out of necessity, like the threshhold being fairly high), but when the status quo is "no rules at all", I look forward to at least the draft that hits the floor. I'm reserving judgement on that draft until (duh) I can read it.
 
2012-12-31 01:27:46 PM

thurstonxhowell: Put another way: What is it about disagreeing with someone else's interests that make them so special?


I think its the millions in dark-money that makes them special. Is it too much to ask that when my congressperson is bought-and-paid-for, I at least get to know who bought them and what the agreed-upon price was?
 
2012-12-31 01:28:10 PM

winterbraid: [slacktory.com image 600x200]
go on...


Hey! That's not a pipe!
 
2012-12-31 01:32:53 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: thurstonxhowell: Put another way: What is it about disagreeing with someone else's interests that make them so special?

I think its the millions in dark-money that makes them special. Is it too much to ask that when my congressperson is bought-and-paid-for, I at least get to know who bought them and what the agreed-upon price was?


Comparison shopping Congresspeople - a growth industry.

// like professional killing
// yes, you do get dental
 
2012-12-31 01:42:37 PM

Serious Black: The people who want anonymity the most also want the most influence over our government.


That is true.


Why should we let Sheldon Adelson spend $200 million completely in the dark from the rest of us when the people he is donating to know for certain that he's given them that enormous sum of money?


I can't think of a reason aside from the points I already raised with nmrsnr, but I think publishing donor lists isn't the right way to go about solving the problem of money in politics. It would be better to make an absolute limit to contributions to political organizations. Suburban Cowboy and lennavan had a good list going as well.
 
2012-12-31 01:56:23 PM

TFerWannaBe: Serious Black: The people who want anonymity the most also want the most influence over our government.

That is true.


Why should we let Sheldon Adelson spend $200 million completely in the dark from the rest of us when the people he is donating to know for certain that he's given them that enormous sum of money?

I can't think of a reason aside from the points I already raised with nmrsnr, but I think publishing donor lists isn't the right way to go about solving the problem of money in politics. It would be better to make an absolute limit to contributions to political organizations. Suburban Cowboy and lennavan had a good list going as well.


I certainly agree with you, but we're not going to get that with the Supreme Court following Buckley v. Valeo. We'd need an amendment to the Constitution allowing that to be legal or for the Supreme Court to overturn that case. Until that happens, instant and full disclosure of donations is the best we can do.
 
2012-12-31 02:07:05 PM
Don't get too excited about Lisa.

She had no problem voting for NDAA last year and, after voting in favor of indefinite detention of American civilians without trial in the War on Turr, had the balls to write a smarmy 'community perspective' to our local paper finishing with, "It was said long ago that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. We must remain ever-watchful of those who threaten our freedoms, but also ever-mindful of the value of our individual liberties".

/Wouldn't trust her any farther than I could throw her...
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report