Campaigns/Elections

DISCLOSE Act Looks Dead

|

Fox News reports that "the DISCLOSE Act appears to stand no chance of passage this session" now that the Republican senators deemed most likely to support the bill, Maine's Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, have announced their opposition. The Democrats are yet another vote short on today's motion to proceed with debate because Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is attending a funeral. And to really rub it in, the AFL-CIO officially turned against the bill today:

William Samuel, director of the union's government affairs department, makes clear in a strongly-worded statement to members that though the AFL-CIO opposes the measure "reluctantly," it nevertheless feels the bill "imposes extraordinary new, costly, and impractical record-keeping and reporting obligations on thousands of labor (and other non-profit) organizations," adding that the bill "would disrupt the operation of thousands of organizations without any corresponding public benefit."

Previous coverage of the DISCLOSE Act here.

Update: The Democrats fell three votes shy of the 60 needed to advance the bill. The Center for Competitive Politics reacts.

NEXT: Fiscal Effects of Government Spending, Or: What Macroeconomists Don't Know

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If you have lost the moron twins from Maine, you have lost America.

    1. Truly, it were e’er so.

      1. the Republican senators deemed most likely to support the bill, Maine’s Olympia Snow and Susan Collins

        Is Collins mildly retarded, or is it Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s or both?

  2. the bill “imposes extraordinary new, costly, and impractical record-keeping and reporting obligations [and] would disrupt the operation of thousands of organizations without any corresponding public benefit.”

    Hence our reluctant opposition.

    1. I’m wondering when unions started worrying about ‘public benefits’.

      On the other hand, I suppose during transportation strikes people get a lot more exercising done.

  3. But how will Obama stop the corporations from destroying us all?

    1. At least now they have a ready made excuse when they get killed in November. We would still be in power if it wasn’t for those evil corporations.

    2. By destroying them?

      1. Oh, right.

      2. Kittens give Morbo gas.

        1. CORPORATIONS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

  4. “And to really rub it in, the AFL-CIO officially turned against the bill today”

    Of corse they are. Do you really think they want a 1099 paper trail of every expenditure over $600?

    1. Do you really think they want a 1099 paper trail of every expenditure over $600?

      (cough)Obamacare(cough)

  5. the bill “imposes extraordinary new, costly, and impractical record-keeping and reporting obligations on thousands of labor (and other non-profit) organizations,”

    Curious inclusion there. Is the AFL-CIO suddenly representing all not-for-profit organizations?

    Also…fuzzy, adorable kittens.

  6. Fox News reports that “the DISCLOSE Act appears to stand no chance of passage this session” now that the Republican senators deemed most likely to support the bill, Maine’s Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, have announced their opposition. The Democrats are yet another vote short on today’s motion to proceed with debate because Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is attending a funeral. And to really rub it in, the AFL-CIO officially turned against the bill today:

    The Republican senators deemed most likely to support the bill, Maine’s Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, have announced their opposition waited too long to open the bidding for their votes.

  7. Is it mostly dead, or all dead? Because the public option is “mostly dead,” which means “slightly alive.”

    Hand me that bellows.

    1. There is always hope that a Mad Duck will bring it back.

    2. In my opinion at least, you just won the thread

    3. Oh, what I wouldn’t give for a holocaust cloak.

      1. Or, at his point, any assets to list at all.

    4. It is mostly dead, because Leader Reid voted against it.

      It’s not really “three votes short.” It’s really two votes short, but anything that the Senate Majority Leader votes against can, for procedural reasons, be brought back for another vote.

      Therefore, any close vote that is a loss Leader Reid will vote against in order to keep it only mostly dead.

      1. Are we shure he didn’t forget and vote against it by mistake again?

        1. Heh. If he did, then he backed into the correct Senate parliamentary maneuver for keeping it alive.

          They were really only two votes short, and really only one vote short if Lieberman would have voted for it.

    5. It ain’t dead until all the new Republican Senators who beat Democratic incumbents get sworn in in mid-January.

      The Ds are likely to try and ram all kinds of nasty stuff through once the expected ass-whooping in November leaves the losing Senators with nothing left to fear.

      1. Yeah except in some states they might have to swear them in directly after the election, since five Senate seats are strictly placeholders. I don’t know the breakdown, the laws vary from state to state.

      2. It ain’t dead until we can go through its clothes for loose change.

  8. Why do so many people fail to realize that the main effect (and I assume intent) of campaign finance laws is to keep incumbents and others with the backing of large, established political organizations in power?

    1. Because most people are idiots?

      1. Epi – Why did you make what should have been a simple declarative sentence into a query?

        1. Because you’re an idiot?

        2. Socratice method?

    2. Are you serious?

      1. Serious as a heart attack, you insane bitch.

    3. Is that their main effect? Incumbents tend to win in 90% ranges anytime don’t they?

      1. Why do you hate minority interests? The ten percenters have a right to work, too!

        1. I’m only in favor of perpetual incumbency if we’re talking about Democrats.

          1. Wow, what a spoof. Pity the mind that sees the world as “evil liberals” vs. “right thinking Americans” and little else.

            It’s always funny to see things like this when I come home from volunteering for the Ehrlich campaign. I don’t think I’ve volunteered for a Democratic pol since I moved to Maryland in fact…

            1. Will you STOP THAT?

              I actually like Ehrlich. Your support is making me re-evaluate that position.

            2. More like “evil liberals” and “evil conservatives”, MNG.

              Yes, both exist. Barney Frank is no more worthy of praise than Newt Gingrich. Fuck ’em both.

            3. Not all traitors are leftists, *co*Buchanan*ugh* but all leftists are traitors.

      2. They won’t rest until they get the kind of numbers that would make a dictator skeptical about the election.

  9. Disclose THIS!

  10. So, this would be good (if tentative) news being posted on Reason today, right?

  11. I remember when Suder-Man predicted the death of the health care bill days before it passed.

    1. yes, this is not a done deal.

  12. imposes extraordinary new, costly, and impractical record-keeping and reporting obligations

    Bug, feature, whatevuh.

  13. It’s not really “three votes short.” It’s really two votes short, but anything that the Senate Majority Leader votes against can, for procedural reasons, be brought back for another vote.

    Well, no. It went down 57-41, with all 41 no votes from Republicans.

    Either Chamber can bring back any bill for another vote any time before this Congress ends in mid-January, no matter who voted for or against it previously. They have internal rules about procedures, but those internal rules can be waived. The 60 vote cloture rule used to be 67, and before that it was 50 — the only thing keeping it from going back to 50 is the recognizance that the Democrats are not going to be in the majority forever.

    1. Well, no. It went down 57-41, with all 41 no votes from Republicans.

      Well, no. As the roll call link shows, one of those 41 votes against was by Leader Reid, as I said. Senator Ensign didn’t vote.

      Either Chamber can bring back any bill for another vote any time before this Congress ends in mid-January, no matter who voted for or against it previously. They have internal rules about procedures, but those internal rules can be waived.

      Sure, they can change the rules. However, Reid voted against it solely because it’s much easier procedurally not to have to change the rules.

    2. The 60 vote cloture rule used to be 67, and before that it was 50

      Again, no.

      Cloture never existed as a majority vote. Cloture was first adopted as the two-thirds (of sitting senators, not voting) around the time of Wilson, and then reduced to three-fifths (again, of sitting senators.) Before that the Senate had in fact no way to shut off debate, though Senate Majority Leaders had threatened to adopt rules to do so. However, the filibuster was then used much less, so much of the ordinary business of the Senate proceeded under majority rule. At the same time as cloture was adopted and then the votes required weakened, came a concomitant willingness by the minority party to use the filibuster.

    3. Here are the current Senate rules. You can note that rule 35 notes that “These rules shall not be altered, amended or suspended except by vote of at least two-thirds of the members present.”

      Of course, in a certain sense, yes, a Senate majority can do whatever it wants, even ignore the rules that it has adopted. It does make things a little more difficult and would cause the minority to become very upset, though.

      Also, I don’t think you meant the word “recognizance” there.

  14. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is attending a funeral.

    I find it deeply (DEEEEEEPLY!) disappointing that it is apparently not his own.

  15. Good. Hope this thing STAYS dead.

    1. Bills like this one are the undead. You know it’ll be back in some form, possibly wearing a hockey mask.

      1. Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

        But, yeah, it’ll be back. Fucking politicians just can’t resist making things worse.

  16. I loved how the radio station I was listening to today described the bill as “closing a loophole in campaign finance law opened by the Supreme Court earlier this year”. Freedom of speech is a freakin’ loophole,…morons.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.