AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.
Click here to visit the new home of Politics Daily!Hot on HuffPost:
See More Stories
Obama Announces Birth Control Compromise
10 Things That Mean Less Than A Trump Endorsement
Campaign-Finance Disclosure Bill Fails In the Senate
Democrats wrote the bill in early 2010 to blunt the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, which eliminated spending limits for corporations and some interest groups in federal elections. Republicans hailed the ruling as a victory for free speech in federal elections, while Democrats warned that corporations' money would drown out the voices of average Americans in the democratic process.
The bill under consideration Tuesday would have prevented foreign corporations from spending money in American elections; prevented companies that receive TARP funds from financing elections or campaigns; prevented government contractors from funding campaigns; and would have required company CEOs to appear in campaign ads financed by their companies.
The House passed the legislation earlier this year, but not without controversy. A measure added by Democrats to win moderate votes stipulated that some large advocacy organizations would not be subjected to the new disclosure requirements. The primary group to benefit from the language would be the National Rifle Association.
Democrats knew the bill would fail, but chose to call a vote anyway, believing that Republicans' opposition to the legislation would be seen by voters as proof that the GOP puts the interests of corporate America over those of everyday people. But Republicans weren't the only ones with problems with the bill. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a staunch gun control advocate, voted with the Democrats to limit debate on the bill, but told reporters Tuesday she could not vote for the bill as it's written because of the provision for the NRA.
Moments before the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said bill could not rein in corporate spending, but it could at least even the playing field in terms of telling voters who is paying for the ads on their televisions. "When the voice of corporations grows louder, the voice of the citizen becomes harder to hear," Reid said.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) rejected that notion and said Democrats wrote the bill not to protect voters, but to protect themselves in the November elections, when corporations are expected to favor Republicans. "This is nothing more than a transparent effort to rig the fall elections," McConnell said.
Our New Approach to Comments
Add a Comment
This is a breakout of top campaign donations made by various "groups" from 1989 through 2009, and shows what percentage was given to each Party. This information, and a whole ton of other government info is on opensecrets.com:......
1. AT&T Inc $45,279,674.... D 44% R 55%........................................
2 American Fedn of State,Cty & Municipal Employees $42,764,261 (D 98%) (R 1%)
3 ActBlue $40,136,255..... (D 99%) (R 0%) ....................................
4 National Assn of Realtors $36,626,273....... (D 48%) (R 51%) .................
5 Goldman Sachs $32,497,752......... (D 63%) (R 36%) ...........................
6 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $32,282,895..... (D 97%) (R 2%).....
7 American Assn for Justice $32,245,629...... (D 90%) (R 8%).................
8 National Education Assn (Teachers Union) $30,606,680..... (D 92%) (R 6%).......
9 Laborers Union $29,604,550..... (D 92%) (R 7%).............................
10 Teamsters Union $28,510,684...... (D 93%) (R 6%)..........................
11 Service Employees International Union $28,461,982.... (D 95%) (R 3%)......
12 Carpenters & Joiners Union $28,386,933..... (D 89%) (R 10%)...............
13 American Federation of Teachers $27,711,391.... (D 98%) (R 0%)............
14 Communications Workers of America $27,543,796...(D 98%) (R 0%)............
15 Citigroup Inc $27,448,288..... (D 50%) (R 49%)............................
16 American Medical Assn $26,475,455..... (D 39%) (R 60%)....................
17 United Auto Workers $26,241,902..... (D 98%) (R 0%).......................
18 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $25,593,777.... (D 98%) (R 0%).......
19 National Auto Dealers Assn $24,968,258....... (D 32%) (R 67%).............
20 United Parcel Service $24,675,166..... (D 36%) (R 63%)
21 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $24,655,133.... (D 98%( (R 1%).....
22 Altria Group $24,210,766..... (D 27%) (R 71%).............................
23 American Bankers Assn $23,071,721....... (D 40%) (R 58%)..................
24 National Assn of Home Builders $22,655,655...... (D 36%) (R 63%)............
25 EMILY's List $21,975,832....... (D 99%) (R 0%)..............................
It is interesting to note those organizations that gave more to Republicans, and match it against those industries targeted by the Obama administration for takeover, or increased regulation. All in the interest of protecting the citizens, of course, noting political about it.
INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER campaign funding.....it is the only way to eliminate the lobbyists, special interest groups, unions, corps, foreign money bundlers, etc. Get them all out, and we might get back to a Congress that works for the people, not for their re-election and their own pockets.
July 30 2010 at 12:17 PM Report abuse Permalink +1 rate up rate down ReplyOf course the corporations favor republicans. Republicans care only about corporations, and not the common man. Republicans can be bought and paid for by these corporations. Meanwhile, the middle class suffers. This is the first step toward fascism/corporatism. The corporations will control the government. More jobs will be outsourced. The middle class will disappear. Time for a revolution.
July 29 2010 at 5:39 PM Report abuse Permalink -6 rate up rate down ReplyI for one would want to know which companies are putting big bucks into election advertising. I want the opportunity to possibly go to court if a company I work for backs a candidate I don't approve of with money I helped them earn. That would be, in my eyes, a violation of my right to free speech if the company I work for says it is all for somebody I am not.
July 27 2010 at 11:07 PM Report abuse Permalink -4 rate up rate down ReplyWhy did the unions oppose the bill?
July 27 2010 at 6:33 PM Report abuse Permalink +6 rate up rate down ReplyThis is stupid.This bill should have never been drafted. You would think they would have bigger problems to worry about like jobs and the economy which they seem to keep avoiding. Who cares what corporations spend in a federal election on advertising. They can spend what they want say what they want but I do not have to listen that is my choice.I would rather see them waste their money on stupid ads then trying to use it to bribe candidates.The old saying a fool and his money soon part.How many people really pay attention to TV campaign ads.Most contain twisted truth and mud slinging
July 27 2010 at 5:55 PM Report abuse Permalink +6 rate up rate down ReplyLayne-- anyone can donate anything they want to an election campaign. Bottom line is that the candidates still have to be elected by we, the people. If voters are too dumb to take a serious look into the background of a candidate, they deserve what they get. Unfortunately, I also get what they deserve. Maybe we should try something like "truth in advertising" legislation in election campaigns. By the way, I am a conservative and I'll be the last to admit that Republicans are above lying in campaign ads. They do it as well as anyone else.
July 27 2010 at 9:32 PM Report abuse Permalink +8 rate up rate down ReplyWhat is stupid is that five Supreme Court Justices think the rights of "we the people" should should be handed over to corporations. Next they'll be telling us that corporations can buy up and stockpile all the guns they want.(That would be one way to assure employee submission, wouldn't it?)
July 27 2010 at 11:17 PM Report abuse Permalink -4 rate up rate down ReplySpin spin spin, anytime that REFORM is waged against government the buddy-ballers red and blue shoot it down.
July 27 2010 at 5:46 PM Report abuse Permalink +8 rate up rate down ReplyWhat else is new about the Republicans, saying "NO" to everything. Want to get a bill thru without Republican opposition? Just add a rider which would give the rich a few more TRILLIONS in tax cuts for the rich
July 27 2010 at 5:31 PM Report abuse Permalink -9 rate up rate down ReplyLet me get this straight. Corporations are subject to taxation and regulation, but Democrats don't want them to have a voice in who is elected? On the one hand they want to tax them as individuals, but don't want to give them individual rights to fund whatever candidate they wish. Typical liberalism.
July 27 2010 at 5:28 PM Report abuse Permalink +7 rate up rate down ReplyWhen Dems do not like Supreme Court rulings, they now simply attempt to skirt the Constitution. If they are successful, America may as well do away with the Supreme Court and let Pelosi run the country beside Obama.
July 27 2010 at 5:13 PM Report abuse Permalink +6 rate up rate down ReplyIf the Supreme Court wouldn't skirt the Constitution with idiotic rulings that automatically put the interests of a corporation over the interests of the citizenry, the Democrats wouldn't have to.
July 27 2010 at 11:12 PM Report abuse Permalink -4 rate up rate down Reply
Follow Politics Daily
Emotions Run High at Rep. Peter King's Hearings on Radical Muslims in the U.S.
Keith Ellison, Muslim Congressman, Breaks Into Tears at King's Hearing
Rep. Peter King's Hearing on American Muslims: How Radical? How Dangerous?
Rival Budget Bills Fail in Senate, Shutdown Countdown Begins
Budget Battle Puts Moderate Senators in the Hot Seat
POPULAR
- Nancy Pelosi Confirms House May Skip Up or Down Vote on Senate Health Bill
- The Five Most Racist Obama Cartoons?
- Huck Finn, Censorship and the N-Word Controversy
- Soraya M., Stoned to Death for Being an "Inconvenient Wife''
- Kathryn Rogers: 6 Things to Know About Rush Limbaugh's Bride-To-Be
- Prop 8 Ruling: Same-Sex Marriage Foes Conduct Post-Mortem
- World's Best City for Men? New York City No. 1 in Survey
News From Our Partners
- The case for a global currency
- Female soldiers fight the brass ceiling
- Catholic tribalism and the contraceptive flap
- The two Americas clash at CPAC
- A birth-control compromise could divide the right
- More Stories »
- Obama Tricked the Right Over Contraception
- Hey, GOP: Bring Back Our 2nd Party
- Santorum: Mitt Romney Bought CPAC
- Palin: GOP Needs an 'Instinctive' Conservative
- Romney Edges Ron Paul in Maine Caucus
- More Stories »
- Palin on Palin impersonators: I'm creating more jobs than Obama
- Former Bachmann spokeswoman joins Santorum team
- McCain to travel to Egypt to resolve dispute over U.S. rights workers
- Paul: Skipped CPAC to Try and Win in Maine
- The Phantom Menace: A Deal On the Payroll Tax Break
- More Stories »
- 10 things you need to know today: February 12, 2012
- 10 things you need to know today: February 11, 2012
- Will money trouble sink Newt Gingrich's campaign?
- Good day, bad day: February 10, 2012
- Obama's birth control compromise: 'Still unacceptable'?
- More Stories »
Top News
More News
More on Aol
Local News
More Blog/Sites
Sites and Services
HuffPost Politics
10 Comments