House 'Shreds Our Constitution for Raw, Ugly, Partisan Gain' by Vote of 219-206

[Geee]

Washington Examiner:

House ’shreds our constitution for raw, ugly, partisan gain’ by vote of 219-206
By: MARK HEMINGWAY
Commentary Staff Writer
06/24/10 6:10 PM EDT

The DISCLOSE Act is the Democrats big legislative “fix” to pushback against the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that eliminated a number of campaign finance restrictions on first amendment grounds. It just passed the House this afternoon — even with 36 Democrats voting against it.

House Republican Leader John Boehner’s already declaring that the legislation will “Shred Our Constitution for Raw, Ugly, Partisan Gain.” Normally, I’d automatically dissmiss such a press release as hyperbole, but this time I’m not so sure. For one thing, the DISCLOSE Act doers this:

A Democratic amendment tucked into campaign finance legislation Wednesday night also drew fire from Republicans and their allies, who contend it gives special treatment to Democrat-allied labor unions. The language in question would exempt from disclosure requirements transfers of cash from dues-funded groups to their affiliates to pay for certain election ads. It was inserted into the bill by Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Administration Committee and a big union backer.

So unions now get nearly unrestricted, undisclosed political spending. Further, the restrictions in the DISCLOSE Act only cut one way — against business. If you took TARP funds as a business, express political advocacy is now verboten. So GM has very limited first amendment rights, but even though arguably primary beneficiary of the auto bailout was the United Auto Workers union which got government garunteed billions directly as a result of the TARP funding — UAW can spend almost whatever it pleases, and it has a history of spending millions on Democratic campaigns.

Further, under the DISCLOSE Act if a company has more than $7 million in government contracts, it has no right to political speech. But public sector unions can spend millions of recycled tax dollars campaigning for Democrats, no problem. All this will likely do is make business spend more money on lobbyists rather than campaigns. Of course, campaign spending is much more transparent than lobbying, but when it comes to the DISCLOSE act, clean elections and free speech seem to be secondary considerations to getting Democrats elected.

[Sabre86]

If the bill passes the Senate, then the Supreme Court is going to b*tch slap Congress.

[kevindavis]

I'm so glad we taught the GOP a lesson... (Please note the sarcasm)

[Valin]

If the bill passes the Senate, then the Supreme Court is going to b*tch slap Congress.

 

 

Remember that was said the last time.

[Sabre86]

If the bill passes the Senate, then the Supreme Court is going to b*tch slap Congress.

 

 

Remember that was said the last time.

Big difference. This bill is in direct conflict with the recent Supreme Court decision, and the Dems have even admitted this bill was written to override the Supreme Court, something which cannot be done without a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court is going to slap it down.

[Valin]

If the bill passes the Senate, then the Supreme Court is going to b*tch slap Congress.

 

 

Remember that was said the last time.

Big difference. This bill is in direct conflict with the recent Supreme Court decision, and the Dems have even admitted this bill was written to override the Supreme Court, something which cannot be done without a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court is going to slap it down.

 

 

 

I hope you are right, but last time I thought it was a slam dunk

Which explains why I make filters and don't appear on Fox News.

[kevindavis]

If the bill passes the Senate, then the Supreme Court is going to b*tch slap Congress.

 

 

Remember that was said the last time.

Big difference. This bill is in direct conflict with the recent Supreme Court decision, and the Dems have even admitted this bill was written to override the Supreme Court, something which cannot be done without a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court is going to slap it down.

 

 

 

I hope you are right, but last time I thought it was a slam dunk

Which explains why I make filters and don't appear on Fox News.

 

Plus the court a bit different..

[Argyle58]

If the bill passes the Senate, then the Supreme Court is going to b*tch slap Congress.

 

 

Remember that was said the last time.

Big difference. This bill is in direct conflict with the recent Supreme Court decision, and the Dems have even admitted this bill was written to override the Supreme Court, something which cannot be done without a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court is going to slap it down.

 

 

 

I hope you are right, but last time I thought it was a slam dunk

Which explains why I make filters and don't appear on Fox News.

 

Plus the court a bit different..

 

Senior Dems have admitted that they expect the law to get struck down by the Court......but not until AFTER the November elections. Unless someone can get a "Fast Track" hearing (unlikely), it will give them a spending edge for the mid-terms.