Pro-Family Groups Applaud Blockage Of DISCLOSE
Act
WASHINGTON, DC, July 29, 2010 - (BP)--A campaign
finance bill that many pro-family groups say would
limit their ability to get their message out and possibly
lead to the intimidation of donors was blocked in the
Senate July 27 when Democrats failed to get any Republicans
to support it.
The White House-backed DISCLOSE Act needed 60 votes
to overcome a filibuster but got only 57, although
it technically was only one vote short. Sen. Joseph
Lieberman, I.-Conn., was absent and said he would have
voted "yes," and Majority Leader Harry Reid,
D.-Nev., switched his vote to "no" at the
last minute in a procedural tactic that will allow
him to bring the bill up again. All 40 Republicans
who were present voted against it, with one Republican
-- Sen. John Ensign, R.-Nev. -- being absent. A similar
version of the bill had passed the House, 219-206.
A host of pro-life and pro-family groups opposed it,
including Family Research Council Action, National
Right to Life, Focus on the Family's Citizenlink and
the National Organization for Marriage. On the left
side of the spectrum, the Americans Civil Liberties
Union also was opposed. The bill would apply not only
to nonprofits but also to corporations, and its supporters
said it was intended to shine more light on campaign
ad spending.
If passed and signed by President Obama, it would have
gone into effect this year, impacting this election
cycle. The day before the vote, Obama urged its passage,
saying it was needed to limit the power of "shadow
groups" who buy millions of dollars of ads and
hide behind names such as "Citizens for a Better
Future" even if, he said, "a more accurate
name" would be "Companies for Weaker Oversight."
"A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less
than a vote to allow corporate and special interest
takeovers of our elections," Obama said. "It
is damaging to our democracy."
But Tom McClusky, senior vice president of Family Research
Council Action, called the filibuster a "victory
for free speech."
"Instead of addressing the problems often found
in the financing of campaigns, the DISCLOSE Act would
add to the already onerous burdens placed on organizations
that act within the law by going after their donors
and exposing them in public forums," McClusky
said in a statement.
The bill's restrictions would kick in when an ad mentions
a candidate or a member of Congress. Such restrictions
could severely hamper nonprofit-issued advocacy ads
that, for example, promote or oppose a specific bill
and urge viewers to contact their legislator.
National Right to Life sent a letter to senators July
23 detailing what it sees as the bill's problems. Among
them:
-- The bill's requirement to release publicly every
donor who gives more than $1,000. "Our members
and supporters have a right to support our public advocacy
about important and controversial issues without having
their identifying information posted on the Internet,
exposing them to harassment or retribution by those
who may disagree with their belief," National
Right to Life said. Said FRC Action, "We have
seen intimidation employed time and time again against
Christians in states like Massachusetts, California
and Maine for merely voicing their belief that marriage
is between one man and one woman."
-- Its requirement that the top donor actually appear
in the television ad, similar to how candidates do
today. Radio ads would be subject to similar restrictions.
National Right to Life said it is wrong for the government
to require, for instance, a "75-year-old woman
with health problems, who holds strong religious convictions
and who wishes to promote" a pro-life bill to
appear in a TV ad.
-- Its exemption of large organizations such as the
National Rifle Association. While the NRA and organizations
like it would be exempt, small nonprofits -- such as
state-level pro-life groups -- would not be. National
Right to Life asked why "much smaller state-level
organizations" that have far fewer "financial,
administrative, and legal resources" would be
required to go through legal traps and layers of reporting
requirements when larger organizations are not.
-- The fact that it would apply 120 days prior to a
general election, twice as much as is the case now. "For
example," National Right to Life wrote, "an
organization that sponsors a single radio ad costing
$10,000 or more that says no more than, 'Call Senator
Jones -- urge him to support the First Amendment by
voting no on S. 3628' -- would be required to publicly
identify every donor of more than $1,000 to the organization
(whether or not the donation was spent on the ad) throughout
the year."
The bill is S. 3628 in the Senate, H.R. 5175 in the
House.
# # #
Compiled by Michael Foust, an assistant editor
of Baptist Press.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Baptist Press
Web site: www.bpnews.net
WASHINGTON, DC, July 29, 2010 - (BP)--A campaign
finance bill that many pro-family groups say would
limit their ability to get their message out and possibly
lead to the intimidation of donors was blocked in the
Senate July 27 when Democrats failed to get any Republicans
to support it.
The White House-backed DISCLOSE Act needed 60 votes
to overcome a filibuster but got only 57, although
it technically was only one vote short. Sen. Joseph
Lieberman, I.-Conn., was absent and said he would have
voted "yes," and Majority Leader Harry Reid,
D.-Nev., switched his vote to "no" at the
last minute in a procedural tactic that will allow
him to bring the bill up again. All 40 Republicans
who were present voted against it, with one Republican
-- Sen. John Ensign, R.-Nev. -- being absent. A similar
version of the bill had passed the House, 219-206.
A host of pro-life and pro-family groups opposed it,
including Family Research Council Action, National
Right to Life, Focus on the Family's Citizenlink and
the National Organization for Marriage. On the left
side of the spectrum, the Americans Civil Liberties
Union also was opposed. The bill would apply not only
to nonprofits but also to corporations, and its supporters
said it was intended to shine more light on campaign
ad spending.
If passed and signed by President Obama, it would have
gone into effect this year, impacting this election
cycle. The day before the vote, Obama urged its passage,
saying it was needed to limit the power of "shadow
groups" who buy millions of dollars of ads and
hide behind names such as "Citizens for a Better
Future" even if, he said, "a more accurate
name" would be "Companies for Weaker Oversight."
"A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less
than a vote to allow corporate and special interest
takeovers of our elections," Obama said. "It
is damaging to our democracy."
But Tom McClusky, senior vice president of Family Research
Council Action, called the filibuster a "victory
for free speech."
"Instead of addressing the problems often found
in the financing of campaigns, the DISCLOSE Act would
add to the already onerous burdens placed on organizations
that act within the law by going after their donors
and exposing them in public forums," McClusky
said in a statement.
The bill's restrictions would kick in when an ad mentions
a candidate or a member of Congress. Such restrictions
could severely hamper nonprofit-issued advocacy ads
that, for example, promote or oppose a specific bill
and urge viewers to contact their legislator.
National Right to Life sent a letter to senators July
23 detailing what it sees as the bill's problems. Among
them:
-- The bill's requirement to release publicly every
donor who gives more than $1,000. "Our members
and supporters have a right to support our public advocacy
about important and controversial issues without having
their identifying information posted on the Internet,
exposing them to harassment or retribution by those
who may disagree with their belief," National
Right to Life said. Said FRC Action, "We have
seen intimidation employed time and time again against
Christians in states like Massachusetts, California
and Maine for merely voicing their belief that marriage
is between one man and one woman."
-- Its requirement that the top donor actually appear
in the television ad, similar to how candidates do
today. Radio ads would be subject to similar restrictions.
National Right to Life said it is wrong for the government
to require, for instance, a "75-year-old woman
with health problems, who holds strong religious convictions
and who wishes to promote" a pro-life bill to
appear in a TV ad.
-- Its exemption of large organizations such as the
National Rifle Association. While the NRA and organizations
like it would be exempt, small nonprofits -- such as
state-level pro-life groups -- would not be. National
Right to Life asked why "much smaller state-level
organizations" that have far fewer "financial,
administrative, and legal resources" would be
required to go through legal traps and layers of reporting
requirements when larger organizations are not.
-- The fact that it would apply 120 days prior to a
general election, twice as much as is the case now. "For
example," National Right to Life wrote, "an
organization that sponsors a single radio ad costing
$10,000 or more that says no more than, 'Call Senator
Jones -- urge him to support the First Amendment by
voting no on S. 3628' -- would be required to publicly
identify every donor of more than $1,000 to the organization
(whether or not the donation was spent on the ad) throughout
the year."
The bill is S. 3628 in the Senate, H.R. 5175 in the
House.
# # #
Compiled by Michael Foust, an assistant editor
of Baptist Press.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Baptist Press
Web site: www.bpnews.net