Mitch McConnell Argues Against More Donor Disclosure, Accuses Obama Of Political Retribution
Source: Huffington Post
WASHINGTON -- In a series of speeches and interviews over the past day, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued against adding a further layer of disclosure to the campaign finance system, suggesting that the Obama administration would use it to browbeat political opponents.
The Kentucky Republican has long been one of Congress' foremost advocates of a far-reaching interpretation of First Amendment rights. And his remarks, first to Fox News, then to the Faith and Freedom Conference and finally to the American Enterprise Institute, followed in that vein.
But in arguing against the Disclose Act -- which would require nonprofit groups that spend money on campaign-related advertisements to disclose their funders -- McConnell trotted out another wrinkle. Donors to politically active nonprofit groups, he said, do not deserve to be subjected to public scrutiny or backlash.
"My own view has always been that if you cant convince people of the wisdom of your policies, then you should come up with some better arguments," McConnell said in his American Enterprise Institute speech, according to advanced remarks. "But for all its vaunted tolerance, the political left has consistently demonstrated a militant intolerance for dissent. Sadly, a growing number of people on the left, and now within government itself, appear to have concluded that they cant win on the merits. So theyve resorted to bullying and intimidation instead."
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/15/mitch-mcconnell-donor-disclosure_n_1600487.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Roland99
(53,342 posts)Joe Bacon
(5,165 posts)We DEMAND to know what the Republic Party is hiding!
Where is Adelman's money coming from? China? Israel? Elsewhere?
WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Beaverhausen
(24,470 posts)If so does he have a good opponent we can support?
Blue Owl
(50,482 posts)Which is why McConnell wants to keep his little Koch habit a big secret...
savannah43
(575 posts)SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)I would call him pond scum but I have more respect for pond scum.
madashelltoo
(1,698 posts)he explains that face-freeze thing he's got going on. It could be causing issues with his thought processes. Maybe his synapses aren't synapping properly.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)pile of facism from Mitch McFuckst!ck.
Squeal you facist pig.
-p
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)but the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the government can place reasonable restrictions on that freedom. For example, speech that is intended or is likely to cause or encourage violence can be restricted.
Corporations are not people. They themselves do not exist. They are complex man-made creations with shareholders, executives, boards of directors, employees, customers, etc. But they themselves are NOT human beings.
Further if the Court has previously ruled that reasonable regulation is permitted, why is it not possible to limit contributions to avoid undue influence or require donor disclosure?
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)You want to hide the names of traitors paying your way, promoting selling this land along with the future of coming generations off to your pals.
You dare to say we don't have the right to know who is planning to burn the house down to prevent the arson?
Try again.
barbtries
(28,810 posts)if it was transparent, right minded people would be in a better position to know where they maybe don't want to spend their money. oh well.
fuck him. the republicans imo are getting very OBVIOUS in their "take what you do and use it against your opponent" bullshit.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)The ONLY way we can KNOW that foreign money is not influencing our elections is by complete disclosure...
eggplant
(3,912 posts)Wait, what? Tell that to the Dixie Chicks. And everyone else on the left that has been shouted down.
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)Brigid
(17,621 posts)And the political right has never resorted to "political retribution" or "bullying and intimidation," right?
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)consumer retribution. Corporations don't want to piss off 50% of their customers. Cubs couldn't back pedal fast enough when it became known old man Ricketts was about to finance anti Obama TV ads. Cubs 3 Red Sox 0
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)The First Amendment guarantees free speech, it does not guarantee anonymous speech