These three congressman voted ‘No’ on disclosure
Grafic by Dan
One of the more odious effects of the Citizens United decision was the establishment of SuperPacs that are secretly funded by God only knows who.
These shadowy groups, who don’t have to disclose their donors, are responsible for millions of dollars worth of ads that have bombarded us, and will continue to bombard the airwaves, during political campaigns.
Tuesday, an attempt came in Congress that would have forced the SuperPacs that run radio and television ads to disclose any donors of $10,000 or more.
And guess who voted against it? That’s right, the three congressmen who represent the Roanoke region: Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke County; Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem; and Rep. Robert Hurt, R-Chatham.
The amendment was put forth buy Rep. Anne Eshoo, D-Calif. Five Republicans voted for it, and eight Democrats voted against it. Here was her argument in its favor:
“All Americans have a right to honest information about who has paid for the political messages they receive. This includes the sponsors of political advertisements—not just the names of sham entities designed to evade disclosure.
Americans are besieged by anonymous campaign ads around the clock this year. With disclosure and transparency, the public will be able to decide for themselves, because relevant information about the interests and their impact will be public. Disclosure of an ad’s major donors does not place any undue burdens on speech or industry. It will empower the voters.”
Kind of makes you wonder about the way our reps voted, eh?
March 30, 2012 - 9:00 AM
You really didn’t expect them to vote in tabor did you Dan??
We get the political leaders we permit. When only 50-60% of voters get engaged and actually vote this is the type of yo yo who gets nominated and elected.
More sad “representation.”
“Kind of makes you wonder about the way our reps voted, eh?”
Absolutely. I would take it to disclose any and all donors. I still like the idea of making politicians dress in Racing uniforms with their donors plastered all over them.
“All Americans have a right to honest information about who has paid for the political messages they receive.”
So we can hound them and threaten their lives for not agreeing with us.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/23/pestered-prop-8-donors-file-suit/?page=all
All Americans have a right to honest information about who has demanded the Ten Commandments be removed from schools.(cough)
#3 – I agree with Uptheriver. The party of “NO” is the antithesis of transparency… however I do believe that both parties’ political ads for elections, at all levels, should have to disclose who paid for them. The names of organizations tell us nothing about who is ‘behind the curtain” – for example:
Crossroads GPS = Karl Rove’s organization
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/25/nation/la-na-crossroads-20110625
FreedomWorks = a Teaparty organization funded by GE and other corporate donors
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?b=1497377&c=dkLNK1MQIwG
Americans for Prosperity = funded by billionaire right-wing Koch brothers. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
I wish I could say I was surprised.
#4 So that we know who’s buying representation in the system, Henry.
I see that Henry has joined me and some others on here who are against so-called “tort-reform” (which is actually government regulation against the little guy).
We’re making progress!
I can conceive that Griffith, et al, would argue that they voted against this amendment because they didn’t like the $10,000 threshold. As a Virginia legislator, Del. Morgan Griffith himself argued that ALL campaign donations should be subject to disclosure and there should be no limits and those two planks allowed for the greatest amount of freedom (to contribute to a candidate) and transparency. So perhaps they believe that ALL contributions should be disclosed.
If that’s the case, why didn’t they try to amend the amendment — to eliminate the threshold — or sponsor their own amendment that had no threshold?
My guess, Dan, is that amendments were not allowed by party leadership. This bill wasn’t about actually doing something. It was to give the appearance of trying to be serious about something.
Local politicians are just as blind… In the past month I have given presentations against corporate personhood (Super PACs) and in favor of campaign finance reform to the Board of Supervisors in Franklin, Bedford and Roanoke County, plus Roanoke City.
In all 4 cases, even after following up with the boards, all seem indifferent, though plenty of them “act” supportive. All I asked for was a non-binding resolution against the Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission (allowed Super PACs). If anyone is interested in learning more about what some locales have been doing, please visit http://www.movetoamend.org
Claification: Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission refers to the Supreme Court decision that allowed this nonsense of billionaires essentially buying elections for their candidates.
I have been voting in the 6th district or the ninth for the past 50 years. In that lifetime, these are the three most worthless do nothing congressmen we have ever had from this end of the state. Not one of hem has had anything to do with one single positive piece of legislation. All they can do is be against something. Bob Goodlatte has wasted twenty years
on his windmill tilting at a balance budget amendmwent which would relieve him of the responsibility to make the decisions he was sent to Congress to make. His signal legislative success was a bill to require the readingof the Constitution before the beginning of every new congressional session. He has been a 20 year zero for the 6th district. And Morgan Griffith is so deep into the pockets of the coal mine owners I’m sure he has to blow the coal dust out of his nose every time he comes up for a breath of polluted air.
Local boards are as pushed around by monied interests as any on the national level.