DISCLOSE/ Clean $

==

primary 10 24 master class

see camp finance reform, Dark $

some states still have EG CA props

---

mta 5 25

SB 42, the California Fair Elections Act – CA Common Cause is working with the California Clean Money Campaign and League of Women Voters and a bunch of other orgs on SB 42, which would place a ballot measure on the 2026 ballot to repeal the ban on public financing in non-charter cities, counties, and the state at large here in California. Senator Umberg is sponsoring the legislation, and support is being sought from grassroots organizations across the state. (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Lee) A2-pager presentation is on-line, and David Shor (Money in Politics, California Common Cause, 510-847-7625, dshor@commoncause.org) would be happy to answer any questions about it. Shall SCC MTA sign on to support SB 42 CA Fair Elections Act - Repealing statewide ban on public financing? YES! If yes, who will fill inthis form to add MTA to thelist of supporting organizations? ROB

SEE LEVER MASTER PLAN:

---

---

10 24 master class scotus? CU did not get --> AFP lawsuit camp finance disclosure?

Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta - Ballotpedia

Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta is a case that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 26, 2021, during the court's October 2020-2021 term. It was consolidated with Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta (formerly Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra).

In a 6-3 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the district court was correct in entering judgment in favor of the petitioners and permanently enjoining the California Attorney General from collecting their Schedule B forms, and that the Ninth Circuit erred when it vacated those injunctions and directed the entry of judgment for the attorney general. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.^[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS

• The case: Two conservative advocacy groups, the Thomas More Law Center and Americans for Prosperity, challenged a California policy requirement that tax-exempt §501(c)(3) charitable organizations must disclose the names and addresses of major donors. The groups argued that the policy violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the state. Click here to learn more about the cases' background.

• The issues: The cases concerned governmental disclosure requirements for charitable organizations' donor lists and the Supreme Court's decision in NAACP v. Alabama.

• The questions presented: "Whether the exacting scrutiny this Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context—as called for by NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny—can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest."^[2]

• The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion in the consolidated cases, click here.^[3]

Timeline...

RR promo for pacific legal

:{trailer: :{Master Plan:(style="background-color:#ffff00"):}:** | Listen Now}:

ep 4

3 mtg orlando dallas and --- same time? jerry ford vp

white of US steel

devos amway pal, joe coors/ AILES

In this episode, we definitely answer that question for the very first time. Master Plan lead producer Jared Jacang Maher has uncovered troves of never-before-reported evidence that proves corporate executives and politicians didn’t just read Powell’s memo — they acted on it.

articles jjm jaredjacangmaher@gmail.com Contact

This includes three secret meetings of a “Powell Memo Task Force” — including one at Disney World. These gatherings drew together America’s most powerful businessmen, a future president, and an ambitious young media consultant named Roger Ailes.

By the end of 1974, the Powell Memo had transformed from a set of ideas into an actual master plan — and the pieces were in place to carry out a decades-long assault on American democracy.

FEC V WISC RTL

DAVID:Whitehouse and John McCain tried to quickly limit the rulings effects. They asked the Supreme Court to at least prevent a lower court in Montana from now using Citizens United to gut that state's 100 year old anti corruption law the Supreme Court refused to even hear the case.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: So at that point, I realized, Oh, my God, this is not an innocent mistake. They are actually deliberately trying to open our political world to right wing political dark money.

DAVID: In my imagination, James Bopp was celebrating back home in Indiana when he read the Citizens United ruling.....

DAVID: He was psyched. But if he doesn't sound 100% excited about the ruling, it's because he kind of wasn't sure he had gotten most of what he wanted. He had created a case that convinced the court to go huge and eviscerate campaign finance laws in a world changing ruling, four years before Citizens United, nonprofits and other non disclosing political groups had spent $0 in the 2006 election cycle. In 2010 right after the ruling, those groups accounted for 47 percent of political spending, $134 million but still, there was one part of the Citizens Unitedruling that stuck in James Bopp's craw.

JAMES BOPP JR.: They upheld a report, the disclosure Yeah, the disclosure report.

DAVID: Remember David Bossie originally asked Bopp to help his group circumvent the McCain Feingold law and letCitizens United air its glorified anti-Hillary campaign ad in the middle of the election. But Bossie also told Bopp he wanted to ignore the McCain-Feingold law's disclosure provisions and hide the names of the ad's funders from the public on that disclosure issue, the court actually ruled against Citizens United

The court ruled that laws requiring big spenders in elections and politics to be disclosed, those laws were constitutional. We reject Citizens United's challenge to the disclaimer and disclosure provisions. Those mechanisms provide information to the electorate, the resulting transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and different messages.}:}:

DAVID: When he heard this caveat, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse saw an opportunity to call the Supreme Court's bluff. He introduced a bill called the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections. Act, a hilariously wordy attempt to get a pithy acronym the DISCLOSE Act.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE:The DISCLOSE Act was originally designed to require that you trace back to the actual source of political contributions for any contribution to a political campaign, or a PAC or a Super PAC, over $10,000 in a individual race. That's not a whole lot of people, but at that level, you really are buying influence. And so I think it's important for voters to understand what's going on in their political world around them.

DAVID: Democrats rallied behind the DISCLOSE Act right away, while Republicans like Mitch McConnell contorted themselves to swat it down.

...

====

---

1 23

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/443/text

February 25, 2021

Mr. Whitehouse (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Carper, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown, Mr. Casey, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Tester, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Warner, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Coons, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Schatz, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. King, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Warren, Mr. Markey, Mr. Booker, Mr. Peters, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Hassan, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Smith, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Luján, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Ossoff, and Mr. Warnock) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

cospOnsors

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/443/cosponsors

2 indep bernie and angus king

12 22 kpfa

17 (so gop) states pass laws to prot dark $

eg 1

in a state with a reputation for political scandal, Florida’s 2020 elections saw a particularly brazen scheme to swing three state Senate races. A “dark money” group sent out mailers promoting the campaigns of three “sham” candidates—in one case, diverting enough votes to a candidate with the same last name as former Democratic Sen. José Javier Rodríguez to defeat him. Rodríguez lost by just 32 votes, and Democratic candidates in the other two districts were defeated as well.

The Orlando Sentinel reported that the group behind the misleading mailers, which has renamed itself as Grow United, received a $1.15 million donation from an organization closely tied to the business trade association Associated Industries of Florida. A Dec. 2 Sentinel investigation detailed the group’s consultants’ close coordination withelectric monopoly Florida Power & Light, as well as the power utility’s ties to state Republican leaders, who control the chamber and can block bills like one that would empower solar electricity generators.

Florida organizations supporting Democrats also donated $700,000 to Grow United to obscure the funding source behind expenses like election mailers,a revelation that led to the resignation of a senior House adviser.

Last month, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs launched an investigation into one of Grow United’s donors. The “sham” candidate in Rodriguez’s race pled guilty last August and is cooperating in testimony against the consultant who allegedly put him up to it, former Republican state Sen. Frank Artiles. Artiles has pled not guilty in the case.

With dark money rampant in the state, especially in state Democratic primaries, a Florida Republican is seeking to make it a crime for public officials to request or release information about the sources of money behind election spending by groups that are not required to reveal their donors.

In January, Republican Florida Rep. Toby Overdorf introduced the Personal Information Protection Act (H.B. 1547), which would prohibit public agencies from requesting that any individual, corporation, or other entity release personal information besides what is already required by campaign finance and other laws, or when they have a lawful warrant to seek the information. The bill would also prohibit agencies from publishing such information they may have in their possession. Florida Senator Joe Gruters introduced a similar bill in the Senate (S.B. 1848) that would do the same thing, but only for personal information of donors and other individuals affiliated with 501(c)(3) organizations, though its sponsor says he’s willing to broaden it to cover other types of groups. Each bill would allow for the right of civil action and violators could face possible prison time of up to 90 days.

The House version would prevent campaign finance regulators from trying to force non-disclosing organizations like (c)(4) nonprofits to reveal their donors when they spend money to influence elections in the state.

The new Florida bill is modeled after a policy propagated by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a nonprofit that brings together corporate lobbyists with conservative lawmakers to advance legislation that favors business interests. Rep. Overdorf is one of about 31 Florida elected officials listed as ALEC members as of April 2021, according to a state public records request from the nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). Gruters is the chair of the Florida Republican Party, re-elected to that position last month, and is a close ally of former President Trump, having co-chaired his 2016 state campaign.

In recent years, such bills criminalizing the disclosure of politically-active nonprofits’ donors have spread to a number of states, passing into law in 2021 in Arkansas, Iowa, South Dakota, and Tennessee.

“These types of bills are unnecessary—there are already constitutional protections for donors that would actually face threats, harassment, or reprisal from public identification—and their only true achievement may be to simply impede transparency for politically active nonprofits and make dark money darker,” said Aaron McKean, legal counsel for state and local reform at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, which works to increase transparency in democracy.

“Voters have a right to know which wealthy special interests are spending big money to influence their vote and rig the political system in their favor,” said McKean. “Florida’s legislators should be focused on ensuring voters know the true sources of money used to influence elections.”

A poll commissioned by the Campaign Legal Center previously found strong bipartisan support for “publicly disclosing contributions to organizations involved in elections” so that wealthy special interests cannot operate with impunity and politicians can be held accountable.

florida has led the nation in public corruption convictions for much of the past couple decades. From 1976 to 2018, Florida was among the top 10 states in federal corruption convictions per 10,000 residents, according to a report from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

A longtime state ethics watchdog tells Sludge that the practice of routing funds through dark money groups will proliferate in the state until the Legislature has the political will to stop it.

“I don’t think there will be any reduction in dark money in elections, it’s just going to increase,” said Ben Wilcox, research director of the nonprofit Integrity Florida. “The campaign finance system in Florida is so dysfunctional, it makes this sort of activity so easy to do, and easy to hide the source of campaign donations. There are all sorts of loopholes.”

With the end of Florida’s legislative session coming next month and the bills not gathering co-sponsors, Wilcox thinks that the state’s investigation into the Grow United case has likely chilled their support this year. But Wilcox tells Sludge, “The fact that they filed the bills this year, to further protect the sources of dark money, it tells you whether or not the bills pass this year, they probably will come next year. The powers that be are intent on keeping dark money dark.”

Wilcox also pointed to a loophole in state campaign finance law that allows unlimited donations to state political committees controlled by politicians. “It’s a form of legal corruption,” he said.

“When you look at Florida Power & Light, they give the maximum to various candidates, and then all the big money goes into the political committees, donations of $100,000 and more.” State campaign finance records show that in recent years, the committee Friends of Ron DeSantis has received donations of over $10 million total from Citadel hedge fund manager and GOP megadonor Ken Griffin, $850,000 from investment company Spring Bay Capital, $200,000 from Kane Financial Services, and nearly $125,000 from the Florida Home Builders Association, among many others. 

Last May, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law S.B. 1890, a bill sponsored by Republican State Sen. Ray Rodrigues, that would have set a $3,000 cap on contributions to political committees supporting or opposing constitutional amendments until the measure obtains enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. Florida lawmakers left untouched the ability for donors to make unlimited donations to candidates’ political committees. The law was blocked in federal court on July 1, the day it was slated to take effect, and in August Florida’s Attorney General did not appeal, leaving the injunction in place.

The Tampa Bay Times reported last month that lobbyist Jorge Chamizo provided the bill language to staff of Senate sponsor Gruters, working on behalf of two groups: People United for Privacy and Opportunity Solutions Project. According to CMD, which tracks dark money groups, People United for Privacy was formed by the State Policy Network, an umbrella organization of right-wing causes. Opportunity Solutions Project is the advocacy arm of the Florida-based Foundation for Government Accountability, a State Policy Network member.

This year, Jorge Chamizo is registered to lobby for a long list of business clients, including Associated Industries of Florida andDuke Energy, which was an ALEC member as recently as 2020. Other clients of Chamizo this year include Peoples Gas System, Tampa Electric Company, health insurer Anthem, health care provider Centene, and Uber.

an comm dr

Proponents of democracy responded with disgust Thursday after Senate Republicans filibustered the popular DISCLOSE Act, which seeks to expose the super-wealthy donors who are spending unlimited amounts of undisclosed money to ensure that the U.S. government advances their interests at the expense of the vast majority.

As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), author of the defeated legislation, said in a Wednesday floor speech, the bill's goal is to prevent corporations and billionaires from using dark money loopholes to "spew bile and slime" into the nation's political system.

After all 49 of his GOP colleagues in attendance voted to prevent debate on the legislation endorsed by President Joe Biden, Whitehouse released a statement slamming right-wing lawmakers for fighting to preserve "dark money's poisonous influence over American democracy."

"Today, Senate Republicans stood in lockstep with their megadonors and secretive special interests to protect the most corrupting force in American politics—dark money," said Whitehouse, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The American people are fed up with dark money influence campaigns that rig their government against them and stymie their priorities."

Whitehouse was far from alone in condemning the GOP.

"Once again, Senate Republicans sided with special interests and dark money—and against honest and transparent political debate,"Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) tweeted. "Instead of voting for the DISCLOSE Act and cracking down on the dark money in our democracy, Republicans blocked it. Shameful."

Michael Sozan, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in a statement that "at a time when the guardrails of our democracy are undergoing a severe stress test, it's lamentable that the Senate minority continues to give corporations, wealthy special interests, and foreign entities the ability to secretly spend vast amounts of money to influence election outcomes."

Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center, added that the failure "to advance, or even allow debate on, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act... disappoints those of us who have been fighting against the influence of secret spending."

"More importantly," he continued, "it deprives voters of important information about who is attempting to influence their vote and allows corruption to prevail by permitting special interests to continue anonymously rigging the system in their favor."

"It is past time for Congress to enact legislation that bolsters transparency requirements and fulfills voters' right to know who is spending on election influence—a right that has repeatedly been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, even as the court has struck down other campaign finance and election-related laws," said Potter.

The ability of the nation's wealthiest individuals to translate their disproportionate economic power into political clout has increased exponentially since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision eliminated effective limits on campaign contributions.

As Whitehouse's office noted, "Dark money in particular has skyrocketed despite the Supreme Court, by an 8 to 1 margin inCitizens United,upholding disclosure requirements as a means for citizens and shareholders to hold elected officials and corporate spenders accountable."

According to the Rhode Island Democrat, "Dark money political spending went from under $5 million in 2006 to more than $1 billion in 2020. Billionaire political spending increased by a factor of 70, from $17 million for the 2008 election to $1.2 billion for 2020."

Among other things, the DISCLOSE Act would require "organizations spending money in elections—including super PACs and 501(c)(4) dark money groups—to promptly disclose donors who have given $10,000 or more during an election cycle," his office explained. "In addition to election disclosure requirements, the bill requires groups that spend money on ads supporting or opposingjudicial nominees to disclose their donors."

[twt kickass]

"The DISCLOSE Act would shine a light on special interest spending to neutralize its toxic effect, giving Americans' voices a chance to be heard," said Whitehouse. "Republicans heeded the wishes of dark money donors today, but the fight to pass this bill isn't over."

Given the GOP's unified opposition to the legislation, passing it requires that Senate Democrats abolish the upper chamber's 60-vote filibuster rule—a move corporate Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have refused to support.

"Holding a vote on the DISCLOSE Act without pushing to end the filibuster highlights the fundamental flaw with Democrats in Washington: Their rhetoric and warnings about dark money have always been spot-on, but they have failed to take the actions necessary to actually stop the flow of secret cash distorting and corrupting American politics," The Lever reported earlier this week. "Meanwhile, the party has become increasingly reliant on these same dark pools of cash to help elect more Democratic lawmakers."

an 6 22 kickass

On September 2020, a dark-money group called the Rule of Law Defense Fund convened a meeting in Atlanta of staffers from the fund's corporate sibling, the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). Their purpose was to run "war games," to be ready in the event Donald Trump lost reelection in November. A little over three months later, the same group would help to assemble the mob before the White House on Jan. 6, 2021.

This wasn't an isolated incident. Shadowy preparations like these began long before the violence of Jan. 6. As the House Select Committee investigating those events begins hearings this week, we may learn much more about those preparations and the people behind them.

But it will be difficult to see the full picture, because much of the preparation is shrouded in dark-money secrecy, with funds channeled through front groups that don't have to disclose who controls them.

For now, we're left with mysteries, like Georgia. It was Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger whom Trump personally pressured to "find" the 11,779 votes necessary to flip the state in Trump's favor. Georgia was ground zero for some of Trump's lawyers' most desperate and ridiculous legal claims about the election results — like the "Kraken" suit alleging a role by the deceased Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez in rigging Dominion voting machines. Georgia is where the Rule of Law Defense Fund hatched its scheme. Georgia also saw efforts to create an alternative slate of Trump electors.

Then came the attempt to wield the power of the Justice Department to attack Georgia's election results. For this mission, someone cranked up Jeffrey Clark, a relative unknown who was acting chief of the Department's Civil Division as a result of pre-election DOJ vacancies. Clark prepared a draft letter alleging, falsely, that the department was investigating accusations of voter fraud in Georgia. Of course, we don't know if Clark actually wrote that letter himself; he had no expertise in this area, and evidence suggests the White House communications office was involved. Either way, on New Year's Eve 2020, Trump tried to install Clark as acting attorney general, until then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and his deputies threatened mass resignation.

As the Georgia maneuvers foundered, the effort shifted to Washington. The Rule of Law Defense Fund — the same group convened in Atlanta months earlier — made robocalls hours before Jan. 6 urging followers to "march to the Capitol building and call on Congress to stop the steal." President Trump whipped up insurrectionists at the rally and sent them down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. Violence ensued.

In the aftermath, many of these actors were quick to close ranks. RAGA's leader, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, claims to have had no knowledge of the robocall, but he also refuses — to this day — to admit that Joe Biden is the "duly elected and lawfully serving" president of the United States. At the end of the Trump administration, Clark landed a job at a right-wing dark money group.

Given the anonymity dark money affords, we likely cannot connect all the dots between these dark-money groups, Trump's Georgia obsession and the Jan. 6 riots. We don't know who paid for the planning of the Rule of Law Defense Fund's "war games"; we don't know how Jeffrey Clark nearly vaulted into the attorney general's office to attack Georgia's election results, where his letter came from or who paid his salary when he was gone; we don't know who was behind groups like Women for America First, which footed much of the bill for the Jan. 6 rally.

Successful investigations often "follow the money." But when the money flows through anonymizing channels, investigators hit impenetrable dead ends. The select committee must rely instead on texts, emails, testimony and other documents to make its case. It doesn't have to be this way. Our political system doesn't need to aid and abet the destruction of our democracy.

For starters, we could enforce the rules on the books. Groups like the Rule of Law Defense Fund and Women for America First are 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations. As such, they do not have to disclose their donors, but they are also not allowed to spend more than half their funds on political activity. Is anyone checking compliance with those rules?

Spending reports from 501(c)(4) groups to the IRS can differ markedly from what they report to the Federal Elections Commission. Filing conflicting reports to two federal agencies meets the prima facie definition of a criminal false statement. There is adequate predication for the Treasury Department, the FEC and the Department of Justice to take a look. Have they?

Although dark-money groups can hide their influence apparatus from the IRS and the public, nothing says that grand juries can't get access to that information. In the Watergate investigation, courts decided that even executive privilege had to yield to grand jury investigative subpoenas. But investigators won't get what they don't ask for — or don't subpoena.

The strongest solution is to require disclosure of who spends to influence our politics. My DISCLOSE Act would require groups that spend money in elections — including super PACs and 501(c)(4) dark-money groups — to disclose donors who gave $10,000 or more during an election cycle. Pass this law and the American people might find out who funded the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The dark channels of influence that have corrupted our politics for years were used to plan and execute the Jan. 6 coup attempt. The American people ought to know who the planners are and what they wanted — and we ought to help them find out.

==

https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/rich-republicans-sell-a-woe-is-me-story-seeking-to-hide-big-dollar-campaign-contributions/

no lnx

Rich Republicans sell a woe-is-me story seeking to hide big-dollar campaign contributions

Written by Laura Clawson / Daily Kos August 9, 2019

Days after one of its star reporters jumped on the Republican faux-outrage bandwagon over a Democratic congressman’s use of publicly available campaign finance information, The New York Times offers up a furrowed brow of a story about whether it might be a good idea to hide the names of political donors—after all, people who’ve donated the legal maximum to Donald Trump don’t like the response.

“Calling out the people who fund campaigns is not a new tactic in politics,” Katie Rogers and Annie Karni write, “but the question of how much should be publicly disclosed about those donors has been an issue that Republicans, led by the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, have repeatedly raised in recent years.” In other words, Republicans want all dark money, all the time. No accountability, no sunlight.

Because otherwise, people who can afford to write $2,800 checks—and more—to Donald Trump might get calls saying things like, “Hey, we were going to use you for business, but we found out you’re a racist,” and we can’t have that!

In an article about public disclosure and Republican opposition to such disclosure, nowhere does the Times say in so many words that information on people who give more than $200 to a campaign is publicly available on a government website. Probably the closest is this: “While the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 Citizens United case to uphold public disclosure—with Justice Antonin Scalia, the court’s conservative stalwart, arguing later that without such revelations ‘democracy is doomed’—Republicans and wealthy allies like the Koch brothers have argued that it results in donor harassment and has a chilling effect on free speech.” So the Supreme Court, including its leading right-wing voice, was for disclosure … BUT!

This is The New York Times dedicating 1,400 words to the wish of rich Republicans to change the law to provide less transparency and accountability, only it’s not reporting on that campaign, on the fact that this is what rich Republicans want to do and why that might be and how they’re going about it. Instead, it’s dutifully reporting their cover story as if it has merit and substance. It’s stenography on the “woe is me” of rich people who got some angry—but apparently not threatening, since heaven knows, if anyone had been threatening, we would have heard about it—phone calls because they gave thousands of dollars to a racist.

When we talk about the rules being written for rich people, this is a perfect example of how it happens.

==

CA 8/16:

:{  There are only 2 months left to finish passing theCalifornia DISCLOSE Act (AB 700), our game-changing bill to stop political ads from deceiving voters about who really paid — and we've never been in a better position.

AB 700 decisively passed the Senate Elections Committee in a 4-to-1 vote after nearly 100 Clean Money supporters from around the state }:packed the hearing, traveling from as far as San Diego and Fort Bragg.  We delivered:{ more than 72,500 petition signatures from Clean Money supporters like you — and set the record for the number of signatures included in the official legislative analysis.

Now, AB 700 faces votes in the Senate Appropriations Committee and the full Senate, then a final vote in the Assembly, and finally goes to Governor Brown's desk. }:

==

DARK$

UPDATE:April 28 — The legislation passed out of the Ways and Means Committee on a party line vote with all Republicans in support and Democrats in opposition. Prior to the vote, committee members were sent another letter in support of the bill. This letter came from Phillip Ellender, president of Koch Public Sector, the official lobbying and PR arm of the Koch brothers.

PREVIOUSLY:

WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress are trying to decrease the already scant amount of disclosure for politically-active nonprofits — known as dark money groups. The legislative effort is unsurprisingly supported by the main political arm of the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) is expected to introduce a bill in the Ways and Means Committee that would eliminate the requirement for nonprofits to make a non-public disclosure of their donors to the IRS when they file their annual tax forms. The donor disclosures — known as the Schedule B report — are not released to the public, but the list of donation amounts with the donor names redacted are released.

The bill is supported by Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the dark money donor hub run by the Koch brothers. The Kochs operate a vast political empire that mostly operates through nonprofit organizations that do not disclose their donations.

“This bill is an important first step toward reaffirming Americans’ right to free speech while protecting them from threats and intimidation because of their personal beliefs,” Mark Holden, Freedom Partners chairman and lead lobbyist for Koch Industries, said in a statement.

Roskam’s legislation comes amid a court case involving the donor list of another Koch brothers outfit, Americans for Prosperity Foundation. California attorney general Kamala Harris had sought the donor list of the organization for non-public review to ensure that it was abiding by California laws. A federal court, however, agreed on April 21 with Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s argument that this was a violation of its First Amendment rights.

Campaign finance reform and transparency proponents issued a letter calling on members of the Ways and Means Committee to oppose Roskam’s bill. Those backing the letter include Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation and Rootstrikers.

“Eliminating the existing requirement for disclosure to the IRS of donations to 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups would open the door wide for secret, unaccountable money from foreign governments, foreign corporations and foreign individuals to be illegally laundered into federal elections through 501(c)(4) groups,” the letter reads.

==

==

https://www.facebook.com/votersrighttoknow/

http://billmoyers.com/story/the-conservative-playbook-for-keeping-dark-money-dark/

==

4/15

California DISCLOSE Act, AB 700.

The more letters we send in, the greater the chances that they'll publish a few. They just published a different letter of mine so I'm sending in one on today's editorial even though I know they won't print it. It still counts. Please do the same ASAP.

Here's some tips:

• thank them for their editorial
• also thank Assemblymembers Kansen Chu for being a co-author...AND
• ask where Nora Campos and Evan Low stand

==

CA win:  We did it!  On Wednesday, Governor Brown signed SB 27, the bill to force Dark Money non-profits to reveal their secret funders in California elections.

Here's what I said about it in the Sacramento Bee:

“Governor Brown’s signature of SB 27 marks a turning point in the fight to reveal secret funders of political campaigns. It starts to shed light on dark money in California and serves as an example for the entire nation."

Here's the full story in the Sacramento Bee:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/14/6406111/gov-brown-signs-law-requiring.html

also FED

~ odom 2008

bs by mark levin

Congress Votes to Stifle Political Speech 6/24/2010

The DISCLOSE Act is the work of tyrants

Washington, D.C. —Concerned Women for Americacondemns, the passage of the DISCLOSE Act in the House of Representatives today. Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, stated:

“The DISCLOSE Act is designed to stifle Americans’ legitimate right to political speech and carves out exceptions for powerful special interest groups and unions. It places onerous regulations on small business owners and grassroots groups if they attempt to educate the public on candidates and issues.

“The politicians who voted for this bill have put themselves on record as being against an essential tool through which America came to be a country — the public communication of political views. The brave founders of our country used the public means of their day to inform and persuade citizens, anonymously when so desired. This raw grab for power in an attempt to silence opposition by burdening citizens with regulations is the work of tyrants.”

The DISCLOSE Act requires organizations to name their top donors in ads that mention candidates — even if the donors did not fund the ads. Their CEOs must appear in the ad and twice state their name and the organization’s name. The most “significant” donor must list his name, rank, and organization three times in the ad, and the names of all donors who give $600 or more to the organization must be handed over to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Groups must post a link on their website to the FEC, where a list of their donors’ names can be accessed. It also bans election-related communications 90 days before the primaries up till the general election.

Read More : Congress to Vote on DISCLOSE Act – Condemned by Pro-Life, Pro-Family Groups

==

The Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act, commonly known as the DISCLOSE Act and also known as H.R. 5175 (S.3628-Senate), was a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Chris Van Hollen(D-Maryland) on April 29, 2010 and in the U.S. Senate by Charles Schumer (D-New York) on July 21, 2010.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.

After a cloture vote failed 59–39 on September 23, 2010, the bill was essentially defeated.^[1]

On March 29, 2012, Senator :{Sheldon:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{ Whitehouse:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: (D-Rhode Island) introduced the "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012" (S.3369).^[2] It was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.^[3] This bill has been called the "DISCLOSE Act 2.0" by Democratic sponsors.^[4]

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1 Background
• 2 History
  • 2.1 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
• 3 Legislative action
  • 3.1 Co-sponsors
  • 3.2 Support/opposition
  • 3.3 House of Representatives
  • 3.4 Senate
  • 3.5 Legislative procedure
• 4 Interest group participation and public reaction
  • 4.1 Support
    • 4.1.1 Public Interest Research Group
    • 4.1.2 AFL-CIO
    • 4.1.3 Other
  • 4.2 Opposition
    • 4.2.1 United States Chamber of Commerce
    • 4.2.2 National Federation of Independent Businesses
    • 4.2.3 Other
• 5 See also
• 6 External links
• 7 References

Background:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

In response to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, members of both chambers of Congress introduced the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act of 2010 (DISCLOSE Act).

The bill, as introduced, included banning U.S. corporations with 20 percent or more foreign ownership from influencing election outcomes through the use of campaign contributions; preventing Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients from making political contributions; giving shareholders, organization members, and the general public access to information regarding corporate and interest group campaign expenditures; and requiring disclosure of membership information by organizations with more than 500,000 members that made political ads.^{[citation needed]}

History:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court, in :{Citizens United:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{ v. Federal Election Commission:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:, ruled that 2 U.S.C. 441a, which prohibited corporations and unions from making independent expenditures in political campaigns, was unconstitutional.^[5]

This ruling is frequently described as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,^[6] or permitting foreign associations to donate to campaigns,^[6] or as removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.^[7]

However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign contributions to campaigns (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision^[8]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,^[9] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.^[10]

The ruling did remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.^[11]

Legislative action:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

In response to the Citizens United decision, Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) introduced the House version (H.R. 5175)^[12] and Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) introduced the Senate version (S. 3628).^[13] Supporters argued that the Act, if passed, would deter corporate spending in elections.^[14]

Co-sponsors:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

House: Representatives Mike Castle (R-Delaware) and Walter Jones, Jr. (R-North Carolina) were the only two Republican co-sponsors of H.R. 5175. There were a total of 114 co-sponsors.^[12]

Senate: There were twenty-seven Democratic co-sponsors and no Republican co-sponsors in the Senate.^[13]

Support/opposition:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

House of Representatives:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

In a Washington Post op-ed, Representatives Van Hollen and Castle stated that Congress should improve transparency and enforce disclosure on interests that attempt to influence election results. They argued that Americans deserve the right to information about special interests and that the law would protect democracy from outside influence.^[15]

The Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio), opposed the legislation from its introduction. He argued that the DISCLOSE Act violated the First Amendment and that the bill is a scheme on the part of the majority to silence their opponents. He argued that the legislation had fallen victim to back-room deals and special interest exemptions:

It allows the Humane Society to speak freely, but not the Farm Bureau. It would protect the AARP's rights, but not 60-Plus. And lastly it would protect the National Rifle Association but not the National Right to Life. The NRA is carved out and gets a special deal in this bill. The NRA is all about protecting the Second Amendment, but apparently its leaders don't care about protecting the First Amendment. That's very disappointing.^[16]

Senate:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York), the lead sponsor of the Senate version of the DISCLOSE Act (s. 3628), claimed that at a time in which the American people fear the influence of special interests, the legislation would create greater disclosure over the flow of money. He further argued that unless Congress acted quickly, The Supreme Court would have predetermined the outcome of November's election.^[17]

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), a major opponent of the current bill, stated that the majority had drafted a bill behind closed doors without Congressional hearings or markups. He argued that politics was driving the legislation.^[18]

Legislative procedure:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

On June 24, 2010 the House passed H.R. 5175 by a 219–206 vote (Roll call # 391).^[19] The Senate attempted to take up the legislation prior to the October recess working period, but failed to reach agreement on the Senate version (S.3628) on September 23, 2010 by a vote of 59–39 (Roll call # 240).^[20]

President Obama welcomed passage of the House bill. In his statement, he congratulated the House of Representatives for passing legislation that would create stronger disclosure requirements, restrict funding by organizations with recent government financial assistance, and limit the potential for foreign influence. After the Senate failed to pass legislation prior to October recess, President Obama expressed disappointment, stating that failure was a loss for the American people.^[21]

Interest group participation and public reaction:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Support

Public Interest Research Group:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

The US Public Interest Research Group supported the introduction of the DISCLOSE Act but withheld its support when special interest exemptions were provided. However, it continues to maintain its support for future Senate action on some version of the bill.^[22]

AFL-CIO:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

In a statement by AFL–CIO President Richard Trumka on April 29, 2010, he applauded Congress for introducing legislation that would create transparency and address issues related to campaign finance reform. Trumka stated that the United States needs stronger regulation in place to promote equal participation by individuals and organizations, protect political speech, encourage the use public financing options for political candidates, and promote disclosure for advertisement contributions.^[23]

Other:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

The bill was supported by the Democratic Party in Congress.^[24] Comedian Stephen Colbert endorsed the idea after Nancy Pelosi agreed to push other Democratic congressmen to participate on Colbert's Better Know a District segment.^[25]

Opposition:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

United States Chamber of Commerce:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

In a press statement, United States Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue criticized the House Democratic majority for passing legislation that would violate the principles of fairness and equality, as prescribed by the Constitution. Further, he argued that the bill's passage resulted from backroom deals with special interest groups and unions who "mask the movement of political money". Donohue argued that Congress should focus on the restoring the economy versus protecting their own jobs and called on the Senate to oppose future passage of the legislation.^[26]

National Federation of Independent Businesses:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

On June 22, 2010, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) sent a key-vote letter to Members of the House of Representatives on behalf of Senior Vice President Susan Eckerly, opposing House passage of H.R. 5175. In their letter, the NFIB stated that passage would threaten small businesses under the First Amendment and creates an unlevel playing field by providing exemptions for certain special interests.^[27]

Other:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

The DISCLOSE Act was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),^[28] which claimed that it "would inflict unnecessary damage to free speech rights and does not include the proper safeguards to protect Americans' privacy. The bill would severely impact donor anonymity, especially those donors who give to smaller and more controversial organizations."

See also:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
• Campaign finance in the United States
• Interest advocacy
• Independent expenditure
• Money trail – Money loop
• Political action committee

External links:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

• H.R. 5175 at THOMAS
• DISCLOSE Act: Shine the Light on Special Interests Behind American Elections at the Speaker of the House
• H.R. 5175: Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act at GovTrack
• H.R. 5175 – DISCLOSE Act at OpenCongress
• DISCLOSE Act advocacy group

References:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

1. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Bill Summary & Status – 111th Congress (2009–2010) – S.3628 – THOMAS (Library of Congress)
2. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Bill Summary & Status – 112th Congress (2011–2012) – S.2219 – THOMAS (Library of Congress)
3. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Bill Summary & Status – 112th Congress (2011–2012) – S.2219 – All Congressional Actions – THOMAS (Library of Congress)
4. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Senate Dems push ‘Disclose Act 2.0’ – The Hill
5. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission". The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
6. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISCLOSE_Act#cite_ref-obama1_6-1) Obama, Barack (January 27, 2010). "Remarks of the President in State of the Union Address".
7. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Dionne, E.J. Jr. (February 5, 2012). "The Citizens United Catastrophe". Washington Post.
8. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), at 887, 909.
9. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), at 947 (Stevens, J., dissenting)
10. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ , 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), at 937, fn. 15 (Stevens, J., dissenting)
11. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ The Campaign Legal Center, "A Guide to the Current Rules For Federal Elections", http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1187%3Aa-guide-to-the-current-rules-for-federal-elections&catid
12. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISCLOSE_Act#cite_ref-ThomasHR5175_12-1) "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act: Bill Summary & Status – 111th Congress (2009–2010) – H.R.5175". THOMAS (Library of Congress). Retrieved 2012-07-20.
13. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISCLOSE_Act#cite_ref-ThomasS3628_13-1) "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act: Bill Summary & Status – 111th Congress (2009–2010) – S.3628". THOMAS (Library of Congress). Retrieved 2012-07-20.
14. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ The Influence Industry: Disclose Act could deter involvement in elections
15. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://castle.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=193682
16. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Press Release – Boehner: Dems’ DISCLOSE Act Will "Shred Our Constitution for Raw, Ugly, Partisan Gain:{":(style="padding-right:0.2em"):}:". John Boehner – 8th District of Ohio. June 24, 2010. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
17. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "SENATE DEMOCRATS UNVEIL LEGISLATION TO LIMIT FALLOUT FROM SUPREME COURT RULING THAT ALLOWS UNLIMITED SPECIAL-INTEREST SPENDING ON ELECTIONS – ANNOUNCE PLAN FOR SENATE PASSAGE BY JULY 4". Senator Charles E. Schumer. April 29, 2010. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
18. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Press Release: Senate Democrats ‘Disclose’ Their Priority". U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. September 22, 2010. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
19. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 391". House.gov. June 24, 2010. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
20. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 3628". U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home. September 23, 2010. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
21. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Statement by the President on Passage of the DISCLOSE Act in the House of Representatives". The White House. June 24, 2010. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
22. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ [[1]](http://www.uspirg.org/newsroom/voting/voting-news/washington-d.c-statement-of-lisa-gilbert-u.s.-pirg-democracy-advocate-on-the-disclose-act#idyR-xjxpR8bq4m6AeHGoyGg)^{[dead link]}
23. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ [2]^{[dead link]}
24. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ [3]^{[dead link]}
25. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Lee, MJ (February 23, 2012). "Stephen Colbert, Nancy Pelosi agree on DISCLOSE ACT". Politico. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
26. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "U.S. Chamber Calls Passage of DISCLOSE Act an Assault on Freedom of Speech". U.S. Chamber of Commerce. June 24, 2010. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
27. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/AllUsers/Campaign%20Finance%20-%20111th%20-%20Disclose%20Act%20key%20vote%20letter.pdf
28. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "ACLU Urges No Vote On DISCLOSE ACT". American Civil Liberties Union. July 26, 2010. Retrieved 2012-07-20.

Categories: 

• United States proposed federal legislation
• Campaign finance reform in the United States

==