RED ALERT! While we watch the Gulf, buttheads in charge are trying to pass the "DISCLOSE" Act!

I'm not watching the Gulf, boss.

I couldn't care less about the Gulf.

HR 5175 seems to be related to toning down Corporate and Union spending on campaigns, I don't see anything about speech. I just skimmed through it though:

[link to www.opencongress.org]


I've been getting "DOWNSIZER DISPATCH" emails for about a year now. I have found them to be a good source so far. Reliable, not alarmists and with a very good purpose of passing a law that all representatives must first READ the laws they pass.

Take this information for what you will, but you KNOW they are using the Gulf crisis as a distraction for this stuff.


I'm saying, read the bill. I don't see anything in there about free speech. It's about opening up campaign financing.



I'm with you- I read over as much of the bill as I could stand, and it seemed to me that it was all about making sure that it's clear who is financing PAID political ads. If I'm reading it correctly, sec. 105A says that any unpaid-for opinion will be exempt from all of this.

I could be wrong. It's happened before.

Having said all this, when was the last time a political ad actually contained anything substantive?


"If we spend more than $10,000 on political communications during a calendar year we would have to report to the government, and to the general public, ALL donors who have given between $600 or $1,000, depending on the type of political communications we wanted to express."

Many small grassroots groups and legitimate politicians trying to do good spend more than $10k per year on political communications.

Ron Paul, for example.

Please, stop trying to dismiss this.

Also, post links to any sites you're referring to so we can review your sources you are claiming to be reading from.

:history:



Shouldn't that photo be Obama?

:ofingr7:

HR 5175 seems to be related to toning down Corporate and Union spending on campaigns, I don't see anything about speech. I just skimmed through it though:

[link to www.opencongress.org]


I've been getting "DOWNSIZER DISPATCH" emails for about a year now. I have found them to be a good source so far. Reliable, not alarmists and with a very good purpose of passing a law that all representatives must first READ the laws they pass.

Take this information for what you will, but you KNOW they are using the Gulf crisis as a distraction for this stuff.


I'm saying, read the bill. I don't see anything in there about free speech. It's about opening up campaign financing.



I'm with you- I read over as much of the bill as I could stand, and it seemed to me that it was all about making sure that it's clear who is financing PAID political ads. If I'm reading it correctly, sec. 105A says that any unpaid-for opinion will be exempt from all of this.

I could be wrong. It's happened before.

Having said all this, when was the last time a political ad actually contained anything substantive?


"If we spend more than $10,000 on political communications during a calendar year we would have to report to the government, and to the general public, ALL donors who have given between $600 or $1,000, depending on the type of political communications we wanted to express."

Many small grassroots groups and legitimate politicians trying to do good spend more than $10k per year on political communications.

Ron Paul, for example.

Please, stop trying to dismiss this.

Also, post links to any sites you're referring to so we can review your sources you are claiming to be reading from.



Greetings!

Honestly not trying to dismiss.

I only made reference to the actual bill at the link above. I haven't read any outside opinion other than what has been posted here.

It seems that the problem is that this bill will apply the same transparency to the big donors (which I believe is a good thing...) as it will to the grassroots organizations. If this is simply a way to clamp down on the smaller voices, I will be against it 100%

Gonna keep trying to read the bill.

:history:

HR 5175 seems to be related to toning down Corporate and Union spending on campaigns, I don't see anything about speech. I just skimmed through it though:

[link to www.opencongress.org]


I've been getting "DOWNSIZER DISPATCH" emails for about a year now. I have found them to be a good source so far. Reliable, not alarmists and with a very good purpose of passing a law that all representatives must first READ the laws they pass.

Take this information for what you will, but you KNOW they are using the Gulf crisis as a distraction for this stuff.


I'm saying, read the bill. I don't see anything in there about free speech. It's about opening up campaign financing.



I'm with you- I read over as much of the bill as I could stand, and it seemed to me that it was all about making sure that it's clear who is financing PAID political ads. If I'm reading it correctly, sec. 105A says that any unpaid-for opinion will be exempt from all of this.

I could be wrong. It's happened before.

Having said all this, when was the last time a political ad actually contained anything substantive?


"If we spend more than $10,000 on political communications during a calendar year we would have to report to the government, and to the general public, ALL donors who have given between $600 or $1,000, depending on the type of political communications we wanted to express."

Many small grassroots groups and legitimate politicians trying to do good spend more than $10k per year on political communications.

Ron Paul, for example.

Please, stop trying to dismiss this.

Also, post links to any sites you're referring to so we can review your sources you are claiming to be reading from.



Greetings!

Honestly not trying to dismiss.

I only made reference to the actual bill at the link above. I haven't read any outside opinion other than what has been posted here.

It seems that the problem is that this bill will apply the same transparency to the big donors (which I believe is a good thing...) as it will to the grassroots organizations. If this is simply a way to clamp down on the smaller voices, I will be against it 100%

Gonna keep trying to read the bill.


Thanks. I appreciate your doing your research before dismissing any of this.

Again, I've never known Downsizer Dispatch to make shit up or put out mis/disinformation, so I doubt HIGHLY they are hyping this unnecessarily. They are very conservative in the information they put out.

:history:

I'm not watching the Gulf, boss.

I couldn't care less about the Gulf.



Yeah why should you care I mean its only the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history...

When a country is under attack, common laws terminate and war time laws activate.

When the British attacked in 1775, were people arrested for shooting at them? No. When Germany bombed UK were the Germans arrested when they got home? NO. Were the British arrested for shooting at the German planes? No. When Japan bombed pearl harbor, were they arrested when they returned home? No. Were Americans arrested for shooting machine guns at the Japanese planes? No.

See, when a country is under attack, common and typical laws go out the window and the law of survival is supposed to kick in. I'm pretty sure if the American people defend themselves, and you tell this to anyone that shows up to arrest you, they are supposed to let you go....yeah.

I'm not sure, but it looks to me like we are under attack.

Tell that to the local PDs, FBI, Sheriff and National guardsmen. Its time to train them to stop acting like sheep.

good, it's not like they ever tell us the truth anyway.

:history:

:history:



Shouldn't that photo be Obama?


It should be a blank template so that everyone can copy and paste photo of current president at will.

Stealth way of attacking grassroots like Ron Paul et al?

---------------------------------------------------------

Quote of the Day: "As we noted in our amicus brief supporting Citizens United, the FEC now has regulations for 33 types of contributions and speech, and 71 different types of speakers. Regardless of the abstract merit of the various arguments for and against limits on political contributions and spending, this very complexity raises serious concerns about whether the law can be enforced consistent with the First Amendment." -- 8 former Commissioners of the Federal Election Commission, writing in the Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2010

The word "disclose," as used in the title of the DISCLOSE Act, is a silly acronym that stands for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections."

We couldn't disagree more.

The provisions of this bill (H.R. 5175 and S. 3295) would actually . . .

* Protect incumbents from competition by other candidates, and from criticism by citizens' groups.
* Violate your First Amendment rights to free speech, free press, and assembly.
* Harm your First Amendment right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances.
* Crush your Ninth Amendment right to associate with others for peaceful purposes, such as defeating incumbent office holders and electing new representatives.

It's important to understand that . . .

* Incumbent politicians support campaign finance laws, like the DISCLOSE Act, because these laws kill your ability to fire and replace them.
* Media companies also love these laws because they cripple your ability to be your own media, by joining with others to fund political advertising campaigns.

Unlike you, and the political organizations you support, media companies enjoy completely unrestricted freedoms of speech, press, and association. They can raise and spend unlimited amounts . . .

* to tell you what you should believe,
* and which candidates are worth considering,
* while completely ignoring or ridiculing those candidates who don't support the Establishment Ideology of Crony Capitalism and Welfare-Warfare Statism.

Specifically, in this case, the DISCLOSE Act would harm DownsizeDC.org, Inc, and other organizations like it. This harm would come in many ways, including the following . . .

If we spend more than $10,000 on political communications during a calendar year we would have to report to the government, and to the general public, ALL donors who have given between $600 or $1,000, depending on the type of political communications we wanted to express.

This may sound trivial, but it's actually ominous . . .

* Instead of simply exercising our rights to free expression we would have to start thinking about whether or not something we wanted to say would trigger the requirements of this law.
* We would also have to start spending money that our donors gave for one purpose, such as educating the public, to comply with this law.
* These reporting requirements will also have a chilling effect on donations. Those who fear potential retaliation from Congress, or who simply value their privacy, may decide to cease making donations.

And that's exactly what the DISCLOSE proponents want -- they want to reduce political expression by groups that represent your anti-Statist ideals. They want to silence DC Downsizers and other groups that oppose the imposition of new burdens on the American people.

This danger is especially severe with larger donors who may have business interests that could be harmed by incumbent politicians. Business leaders know that politicians routinely use their power to reward friends and punish enemies. That's why the DISCLOSE Act also requires that . . .

Both the head of an organization, AND the top contributor to any broadcast ad, must both include recorded statements that they approve the message. Television ads and political mailings, must also list the top five contributors to the organization.

* Once again, this will have a chilling effect on contributions, and once again, this is what incumbent politicians want, because it will reduce the amount of criticism and competition directed at them.
* This requirement will also create administrative headaches. Fundraising materials will have to contain disclosure requirements, and database software will have to be re-programmed to account for these requirements.
* The cost of making ads will also increase, because top donors will have to travel to record their endorsements.
* The broadcast time required to say "this message was funded by... and I approve this message" will also eat into the educational portion of every ad.

According to eight former members of the Federal Election Commission, writing in the Wall Street Journal . . .

In many 30-second ads, DISCLOSE would require no fewer than six statements as to who is paying for the ad (the current law already requires one such statement). These disclaimers would take up as much as half of every ad.

The DISCLOSE Act will also prohibit communications that could be interpreted as advocating a candidate's election or defeat, even if the communication doesn't specifically use those words. This is potentially the most dangerous provision of this legislation given that it is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE.

No one will be able to know for sure if they are violating this law when they prepare an ad or other communication, so it will be safer to simply remain silent. Or, they could choose to divert even more of their donor's money hiring lawyers before making each and every move.

Please use DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System to tell your elected Representatives to oppose the DISCLOSE Act.


We urge you to spread the word about this important issue. Forward this to friends and share on Facebook.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Stealth way of attacking grassroots like Ron Paul et al?

---------------------------------------------------------

Quote of the Day: "As we noted in our amicus brief supporting Citizens United, the FEC now has regulations for 33 types of contributions and speech, and 71 different types of speakers. Regardless of the abstract merit of the various arguments for and against limits on political contributions and spending, this very complexity raises serious concerns about whether the law can be enforced consistent with the First Amendment." -- 8 former Commissioners of the Federal Election Commission, writing in the Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2010

The word "disclose," as used in the title of the DISCLOSE Act, is a silly acronym that stands for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections."

We couldn't disagree more.

The provisions of this bill (H.R. 5175 and S. 3295) would actually . . .

* Protect incumbents from competition by other candidates, and from criticism by citizens' groups.
* Violate your First Amendment rights to free speech, free press, and assembly.
* Harm your First Amendment right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances.
* Crush your Ninth Amendment right to associate with others for peaceful purposes, such as defeating incumbent office holders and electing new representatives.

It's important to understand that . . .

* Incumbent politicians support campaign finance laws, like the DISCLOSE Act, because these laws kill your ability to fire and replace them.
* Media companies also love these laws because they cripple your ability to be your own media, by joining with others to fund political advertising campaigns.

Unlike you, and the political organizations you support, media companies enjoy completely unrestricted freedoms of speech, press, and association. They can raise and spend unlimited amounts . . .

* to tell you what you should believe,
* and which candidates are worth considering,
* while completely ignoring or ridiculing those candidates who don't support the Establishment Ideology of Crony Capitalism and Welfare-Warfare Statism.

Specifically, in this case, the DISCLOSE Act would harm DownsizeDC.org, Inc, and other organizations like it. This harm would come in many ways, including the following . . .

If we spend more than $10,000 on political communications during a calendar year we would have to report to the government, and to the general public, ALL donors who have given between $600 or $1,000, depending on the type of political communications we wanted to express.

This may sound trivial, but it's actually ominous . . .

* Instead of simply exercising our rights to free expression we would have to start thinking about whether or not something we wanted to say would trigger the requirements of this law.
* We would also have to start spending money that our donors gave for one purpose, such as educating the public, to comply with this law.
* These reporting requirements will also have a chilling effect on donations. Those who fear potential retaliation from Congress, or who simply value their privacy, may decide to cease making donations.

And that's exactly what the DISCLOSE proponents want -- they want to reduce political expression by groups that represent your anti-Statist ideals. They want to silence DC Downsizers and other groups that oppose the imposition of new burdens on the American people.

This danger is especially severe with larger donors who may have business interests that could be harmed by incumbent politicians. Business leaders know that politicians routinely use their power to reward friends and punish enemies. That's why the DISCLOSE Act also requires that . . .

Both the head of an organization, AND the top contributor to any broadcast ad, must both include recorded statements that they approve the message. Television ads and political mailings, must also list the top five contributors to the organization.

* Once again, this will have a chilling effect on contributions, and once again, this is what incumbent politicians want, because it will reduce the amount of criticism and competition directed at them.
* This requirement will also create administrative headaches. Fundraising materials will have to contain disclosure requirements, and database software will have to be re-programmed to account for these requirements.
* The cost of making ads will also increase, because top donors will have to travel to record their endorsements.
* The broadcast time required to say "this message was funded by... and I approve this message" will also eat into the educational portion of every ad.

According to eight former members of the Federal Election Commission, writing in the Wall Street Journal . . .

In many 30-second ads, DISCLOSE would require no fewer than six statements as to who is paying for the ad (the current law already requires one such statement). These disclaimers would take up as much as half of every ad.

The DISCLOSE Act will also prohibit communications that could be interpreted as advocating a candidate's election or defeat, even if the communication doesn't specifically use those words. This is potentially the most dangerous provision of this legislation given that it is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE.

No one will be able to know for sure if they are violating this law when they prepare an ad or other communication, so it will be safer to simply remain silent. Or, they could choose to divert even more of their donor's money hiring lawyers before making each and every move.

Please use DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System to tell your elected Representatives to oppose the DISCLOSE Act.


We urge you to spread the word about this important issue. Forward this to friends and share on Facebook.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h



This is a GOOD THING. Will prevent the Corporate States of America from coming into being.

HR 5175 seems to be related to toning down Corporate and Union spending on campaigns, I don't see anything about speech. I just skimmed through it though:

[link to www.opencongress.org]


I've been getting "DOWNSIZER DISPATCH" emails for about a year now. I have found them to be a good source so far. Reliable, not alarmists and with a very good purpose of passing a law that all representatives must first READ the laws they pass.

Take this information for what you will, but you KNOW they are using the Gulf crisis as a distraction for this stuff.

---------------------------------------------------------

I'm saying, read the bill. I don't see anything in there about free speech. It's about opening up campaign financing.

You have to admit, all these opposing views on the internet can be confusing. Like Obama said, it's


-------------------->information overload.

Obama needs to disclose his birth certificate.