Senate to Vote on DISCLOSE Act Again

Despite failing to once to get enough votes for cloture, Senate Democrats are again pushing a vote on the DISCLOSE Act–campaign finance legislation that mirrors some state efforts (like Minnesota, for example) and would require transparency from organizations that spend corporate dollars on political campaigns.  It’s been heralded as a necessary and important first step in rectifying the damage done by the Citizens United decision and one piece of legislation that the American electoral system desperately needs to have pass.

The Huffington Post is reporting that New York Senator Chuck Schumer (D) has even thrown the GOP blockade a bone in the effort to get the bill passed.  According to reports, Schumer has said that he is willing to move the start date for the legislation until next year, meaning it won’t apply to this November’s elections.

It is a symbolic move, that is unlikely to win any votes or get the bill passed.  Under the legislative language of the DISCLOSE Act, there is a 30-day window before implementation, meaning that even if it passed–and was implemented–today, it would go into effect roughly one week before the elections took place.  However, at the time of the previous vote there were a number of Republican lawmakers who had tied their “no” vote to their belief it would have pro-Democratic implications in the 2010 elections.

So, I guess anything is possible.  The first vote for cloture failed by three votes–including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (who voted against the measure for procedural reasons) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman who failed to show up for the vote (I’ll let you insert your own commentary to the aptness of that analogy here).  Presuming these two are yes votes, Senate Democrats need only one vote to end a GOP filibuster.

photo courtesy of Tracy O via Flickr

31 comments

Jonathan Y.
Jonathan Y.6 years ago

The Repugnicans and many bluedog Dems. have totally whored themselves out to the super-rich and global corporations.

It's not a democracy here anymore. It's a plutocracy with taxpayer bailouts for the financial sector's speculative bubbles: Plutosocialism.

Thomas H.
Thomas H.6 years ago

I just don't see Republitards possibly disclosing their Corporate pimps, do you?

Harryson Bowersa
Harryson Bowersa6 years ago

haha, this won't make it through, too many politicians are already in the clutches of corporate "sponsors"

Jan B.
Janr Badinski6 years ago

Accountability and neocons shouldn't be used in the same sentence.

Mike Masley
Michael Masley6 years ago

lol, think this will pass?

Jim Steve
Jim Steve6 years ago

MaryAnn... What part of major PACs and Lobbies are except from this legislation did you miss. Or that the ACLU opposes the bill based on Free Speech?

This is a Establishment Protection Act.

Marilyn L.
Marilyn L.6 years ago

Thanks for the article.

Melinda M.
Past Member 6 years ago

MaryAnn L. she has been doing this for weeks. I have made commments before. I do not believe at this point she actually has an opinion and merely wants to earn 20 points for posting.

The Supreme Court is the one that needs to be overruled about the government being able to be bought and paid for.

Charlene R.
Charlene Rush6 years ago

What makes anyone think that the Republicans will change the system, if the voters don't insist on it? Evidently, transparency in government affairs is not essential for GOP voters.

MaryAnn L.
MaryAnn Larson6 years ago

To Carole H. If you insist on writing a one word comment, perhaps a better one would be "VOTE", since the folks who comment here really DID READ the article, and they do READ enough to know how to make an intelligent comment. Encouraging someone to put their money where their mouth is, by VOTING, would be a smarter comment.