Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access

Obama Moves to Silence Gun Groups and Other Political Opponents

<< < (2/2)

Atroxus:
I am not a lawyer, so if I mis-interpreted please correct me. I read as much of the text of HR 5175 as I could without getting a migraine from all the "legalese". It seems to me though that HR 5175 is all about keeping companies who bid on government contracts from tossing huge wads of cash at campaigns before and during elections in the hopes of getting favorable outcomes on their contract bids. I am not sure how this is supposed to affect gun rights. Maybe it just went over my head, if so please let me know what I am missing and/or misunderstanding.

agerber:
SUPPORT OUR RIGHTS
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,51130.0.html

JB:
That's not really what that bill means.  If you're cool with selling your representation, then by all means chuck it out, you do have a choice.  Any gun legislation that's been out in the last 18 months has been pro-gun and pro-gun owners.

chrisb:
Here is the response I got from Maria Cantwell's office

Dear Mr. ######,

 

Thank you for contacting me about the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act.  I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

 

One of my proudest achievements as your Senator was enacting the first meaningful campaign finance reform legislation in decades – the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Act, P.L. 107-155). This legislation was a critical breakthrough in the long battle to rein in campaign spending, to make improvements in the way politics is conducted, and to make government more responsive to our citizens. It passed through Congress with overwhelming majorities, sending a clear signal of our intent to prevent special interest money from overwhelming our electoral process. I disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations should be granted the same rights as individual citizens and I worry that this ruling will open the door to a flood of corporate campaign spending that will drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

 

As you know, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced the DISCLOSE Act (S. 3295) on April 30, 2010.  If enacted, this legislation would make a number of changes to existing federal election laws.  In particular, it would require any CEO, union leader, or any other organization head whose organization funds campaign-related advertisements to state in the ad that he or she "approves this message."  This is the same type of attribution that is required of candidates.  The top contributors to the organization creating the ad must also be listed onscreen.   Corporations controlled by foreign entities would be prohibited from funding election activities in U.S. elections.  Similarly, any government contractors with contracts above $50,000 and any corporation that received taxpayer dollars through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) would also be prohibited from campaign spending.

 

The DISCLOSE Act has been referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration where it awaits further action.  Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should I have the opportunity to consideration this legislation in the future.

 

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter.  You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents.  If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov.  Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page