@SenWhitehouse My DISCLOSE Act is pretty simple. If you're spending more than 10,000 dollars in a fe

[soothsayer]

Link to tweet

?s=21

Sheldon Whitehouse
@SenWhitehouse
My DISCLOSE Act is pretty simple. If you’re spending more than 10,000 dollars in a federal election, you have to disclose your identity to the public. Like I said, pretty simple. Takes less than 280 characters to explain. #ForThePeopl

[Wounded Bear]

1. Sunshine is the best disinfectant...nt

[msongs]

2. one suspects he refers to advertising/promotion on behalf of a candidate? nt

[belpejic]

3. Should be $2,500

Why start so high?

[bottomofthehill]

5. Paperwork nightmare.

I don’t care about 2500 dollar contributions. Most politicians would not think of changing a vote for that. I would be happy at 10,000 or even 100,000, that’s where the real game is being played. Members of Congress make around 175000 they take home a little over 100,000. You can give their leadership PACs more than that with no accountability.

[judesedit]

20. Exactly

[RainCaster]

4. IMO, $250 is enough

That idea is too easy to get around. I could donate $999. 99 to each republican Senator, and never have to disclose any of it.

[not fooled]

9. ++++++++++++++++++++++

this is the age of computers. That's what they're for--keeping track of stuff like this.

[monkeyman1]

6. hell, i was thinking 50 buck's for us low life income people as donny think's

[BobTheSubgenius]

7. It's a simple and short enough proposal that it could fit on the proverbial GOP bumpersticker.

It won't, of course, because it's 180 degrees from their mission statement - working for The Man every night and day.

[Grins]

8. Should be $1. Better: Feds pick up the tab.

All federal elections - on the taxpayer. Get outside money out. And I’d add in races for Governors, too.

[czarjak]

10. Ann Coulter says "Hell Naw!" More money always wins?

[bringthePaine]

16. money corrupts the people and processes - remove the root of infection, the rest will flourish

[JohnnyRingo]

11. Donations are free speech, and corporations are people too.

But when a living person writes a letter to the editor, they have to supply an actual name. We have freedom of speech, but with personal accountability.

No one wants to mute these corporate voices, but let's see who is doing the talking.
Certainly would explain a representative's voting record.

[Cha]

12. Rt TY!

[NathanJenkins]

13. Whitehouse needs to get more attention than he does.

The guy is a flat out dark money and influence of cash in politics hound.

Unfortunately, he rarely seems to get the attention he deserves.

[KT2000]

14. Agree

He gets to the root of things - money! MSNBC should be covering him more. He has important work to do on the Judicial - the influence of money.

[calimary]

15. I like it!

No more dark money.

Because voters deserve to know who’s purchasing the politicians. Who the owners are.

[DFW]

17. Last cycle, I donated the legal limit to several candidates

Some of them (Ossoff, Biden, Kelly) even won. Other than good government, I ask nothing in return. Publish away.

[BComplex]

18. Just seems to me like the crooks will just spend $10,000 and set up a new shell co.

They have money to burn on buying politicians. What they get in return is always more than that.

[taxi]

19. K&R rt nt (rt-retweet) nt

[liberalla]

21. Excellent! I'm on board for that!

[Marcuse]

22. Appropriately named.