It Doesn’t Get Any Clearer

Shares

Read yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor’s headline and it doesn’t get any clearer: “Democrats renew bid to require big campaign donors to disclose: DISCLOSE Act would require corporations, labor unions, and other groups to disclose campaign donations of more than $10,000, but it faces a GOP filibuster in the Senate.”

Any legislator that opposes the DISCLOSE Act – which would bring much needed transparency to campaigns – needs to be tard, feathered, and sent packin’ (Rehberg already has the feathers, so we can check that off the list).

The DISCLOSE Act would force any group, organization, or individual contributing over $10,000 (yes, over $10,000) to report the contribution to the FEC.  Seems pretty straight forward and fair to me.  Here in Montana, if I donate more than $35 to any statewide candidate, it’s reported – $35!

The contrast between our two main parties couldn’t be more stark.  While Democrats continue to fight for more transparency, the GOP balks.

The contrast is mirrored in the race for the U.S. Senate.  Senator Tester strongly supports the DISCLOSE Act, which could come to a vote as early as Monday.  On the other hand, Representative Rehberg opposes the legislation.

Rehberg has said publicly that anyone spending money to influence an election should report what they spend and who they are.

But Rehberg has not advanced or supported any proposal to force this disclosure, and voted against the Disclose Act in 2010.

His campaign spokesman, Chris Bond, said Friday Rehberg has had concerns that the Disclose Act would make it “unnecessarily difficult to engage in political speech,” but that the congressman will look at a “clean disclosure bill” if it comes to the House floor. The Disclose Act has been locked up in a House committee since February.

As I’ve said before, Rehberg is BFFs with those who advocate for unbrindled spending in our elections.

The reason politicians like Rehberg give for opposing legislation like the DISCLOSE Act is that they worry such disclosures might result in political reprisals.  The logic does not follow.

If campaigns are forced to disclose donations from individuals, why shouldn’t corporations and special interest groups have to follow the same rules – especially since corporations ARE people, my friends?

The contrast between the Democratic Party and the GOP, Tester and Rehberg doesn’t get any clearer.

About the author

M. Storin

3 Comments

  • Nullius in verba.

    Montana Hunters and Anglers are a what? Who do they support? Why do they choose to remain secretive as to their contributors?

    • I think you just proved the point. With the DISCLOSE Act, you’d get some answers. Here’s Rehberg’s office number: (202) 225-3211. Give him a ring and ask him to support the DISCLOSE Act.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: