Not-So-Full Disclosure | Washington Free Beacon
http://freebeacon.com/not-so-full-disclosure/ ”The DISCLOSE Act of 2012, first introduced in March, had two major provisions: requiring politically active super PACs, unions, and corporations to disclose the identity of donors who contribute $10,000 or more; and requiring electioneering ads to disclose who is funding them. But the latter so -called “stand by your ad” provision is absent from the version of the bill on which the Senate will vote. A spokesman for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), who introduced the bill, said the provision was nixed in response to GOP complaints. “The ‘stand by your ad’ provision was dropped in response to objections we’ve heard from folks on the other side of the aisle,” the spokesman said. “It’s now targeted specifically at requiring disclosure.” However, a senior Republican aide told the Free Beacon the provision was dropped due to union pressure. The “stand by your ad” provision would have required the CEO or equivalent position of an organization buying electioneering ads—AFL -CIO President Richard Trumka, for example—to endorse them, similar to the endorsements required at the end of ads purchased by political campaigns. “The Trumkas of the world aren’t exactly the warm, fuzzy personalities you want appearing at the end of your ad,” the aide said.”
RRD:I'm glad they pulled that provision irrespective of why they did it,but the bill needs a complete redo or they should scrap it and replace it with something that does not trample on free speech rights.
The ACLU's comment is in the original.
http://freebeacon.com/not-so-full-disclosure/ ”The DISCLOSE Act of 2012, first introduced in March, had two major provisions: requiring politically active super PACs, unions, and corporations to disclose the identity of donors who contribute $10,000 or more; and requiring electioneering ads to disclose who is funding them. But the latter so -called “stand by your ad” provision is absent from the version of the bill on which the Senate will vote. A spokesman for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), who introduced the bill, said the provision was nixed in response to GOP complaints. “The ‘stand by your ad’ provision was dropped in response to objections we’ve heard from folks on the other side of the aisle,” the spokesman said. “It’s now targeted specifically at requiring disclosure.” However, a senior Republican aide told the Free Beacon the provision was dropped due to union pressure. The “stand by your ad” provision would have required the CEO or equivalent position of an organization buying electioneering ads—AFL -CIO President Richard Trumka, for example—to endorse them, similar to the endorsements required at the end of ads purchased by political campaigns. “The Trumkas of the world aren’t exactly the warm, fuzzy personalities you want appearing at the end of your ad,” the aide said.”
RRD:I'm glad they pulled that provision irrespective of why they did it,but the bill needs a complete redo or they should scrap it and replace it with something that does not trample on free speech rights.
The ACLU's comment is in the original.
No comments:
Post a Comment