YES!!! -- House & Senate Democrats Introduce 12 Bills Targeted at Campaign Finance Reform

[KoKo]

Democrats Link Middle Class Woes To Need For Campaign Finance Reform

WASHINGTON -- On Wednesday, the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, House and Senate Democrats aimed all the spotlights at campaign finance reform. They introduced a dozen bills designed to reduce the influence of money in politics. And they drew a clear line from fixing the electoral system to lifting up middle-class Americans.

"If anyone thinks that the issues of the economy, the minimum wage, overtime, job creation, climate change, education are not directly related to campaign finance reform, you are terribly wrong," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told reporters at the Democrats' press event.

The party's message was not brand-new. After passage of the omnibus budget bill at the close of 2014, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had sent a letter to her caucus praising their strong opposition to a last-minute provision that raised limits on campaign contributions to political parties.

"The inclusion of the outrageous campaign contribution provision gives further evidence of the need for campaign finance reform, and an opportunity for advancing initiatives to empower small donors and all American voters," Pelosi wrote.

"[Americans] feel they can't make real economic progress when PACs and lobbyists are crowding them out to cut overtime, give tax cuts to the wealthy, and help ship jobs to cheap labor markets abroad," Israel said in a statement to The Huffington Post. "Rep. Sarbanes' bill, the Government by the People Act, would help level the playing field and give ordinary Americans the voice that decisions, like Citizens United, have so recklessly dismantled."

Wednesday's unveiling of legislation also drew attention to the more than 130 organizations that have signed a unified statement of principles on the need for campaign finance reform. They ran the gamut from some of the largest membership organizations, like the AFL-CIO, the NAACP and the Sierra Club, to traditional campaign finance reform and consumer groups.

Coordination of reform efforts among these groups has greatly increased since the Citizens United decision. On Wednesday, they revealed that 5 million Americans had signed a petition calling for an amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision.

The 12 bills introduced Wednesday included:

The Government by the People Act, which would establish a publicly financed small-donor matching system for congressional elections. Introduced by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.).

The Disclose Act, which would require disclosure from all groups that spend on elections. Introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

The Democracy for All Amendment, which calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and other Supreme Court restrictions on campaign finance reform. Introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Reps. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).

The Real Time Transparency Act, which would require disclosure of all contributions of $1,000 or more within 48 hours. Introduced by Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) and Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas).

The Sunlight for Unaccountable Nonprofits Act, which would force electorally active nonprofits to disclose contributions of $5,000 or more. Introduced by Sen. Tester.

The Shareholder Protection Act, which would require publicly traded companies to inform their shareholders of political contributions. Introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.).

The Empowering Citizens Act, which would establish a publicly financed small-donor matching system for congressional elections, fix the presidential public financing system and expand coordination rules for outside groups. Introduced by Rep. David Price (D-N.C.).

The Fair Elections Now Act, which would create a publicly financed small-donor matching system for congressional elections. Introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin

Continued at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/democrats-campaign-finance-reform_n_6517648.html

[Orrex]

1. Great to see them doing this now that they control Congress

Oh, wait a minute.

[SunSeeker]

2. So they should just sit on their hands? Not even present the argument? nt

[Orrex]

5. They should have presented the argument when they had control of the Senate

At this point it's a pointless gesture from the very start, so one wonders why they're doing it when they no that it has zero chance of passing.

It would appear that they're doing it so that they can tout themselves during the next election cycle without actually having to risk anything. Strategically, it's very much like Republicans futilely voting 100 times to repeal Obamacare.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. Speaking of strategically ...

Question: what would have happened had they introduced this legislation when Democrats held the majority?

Answer: It would have gone nowhere, as republicans would have blocked it.

Question: But republicans will block it now! What's the difference?

Answer: The 2016 elections! If these Bills had been introduced at any time before now ... they would be long forgotten by election day 2016. By doing it now, every Democratic candidate has a ready made campaign issue and every republican candidate is on the defensive. And, as an added bonus, introducing it now will affect the 2016 primaries, forcing Democratic primary candidates to pick a side on the issue!

Strategically, it's very much like Republicans futilely voting 100 times to repeal Obamacare.

And, strategically, the 100 republican votes to repeal ObamaCare, served it purpose ... to keep the issue in front of their base.

[PotatoChip]

22. Bingo.

A majority of the general public wants something done about the money in politics issue.

Most Dems are sympathetic to, if not outright agree w/the general public on this.

None of these measures would have passed either prior to the midterms, or now.

However, these bills not passing in an R controlled Congress will reflect far more poorly on them now.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. I expect a bunch of progressive legislation ...

to be written and introduced by Democrats (specifically, legislation that would reverse the worst of the, recently passed, spending bill) in the coming weeks ... In fact, I predicted it during the "OMG, that sell-out President Obama lobbied Democrats to get the Cromnibus passed" threads.

http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5977292

[TheKentuckian]

31. How is presenting proposals going nowhere supposed to offset or make for something actually passed?

Seems like an absurd thing to be patting yourself on the back about?

Your "strategy" was inane then and is even more ridiculous now.

I have never seen such foolishness.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Okay,High rebuke taken ...

I will stop now!

Though I've noticed, other than calling the strategy that is being played out, inane, you haven't refuted it ... rather, you, with all your strategic wisdom just angrily disagree ... just like every other "Democrat" on this board that has been wrong at every strategic juncture for the last 6 years.

I will take President Obama (and his team of advisors) every time ...and I'll bet there are more then a few former Democratic representative/candidates that wish they had, too.

[TheKentuckian]

39. There is nothing to refute because it is vapor

A logic based on passing dangerous deregulation, budget cuts, horrible laws whatever it is we've seen this same "strategy" a few times already in the various budget deals and authorizations including "the trigger" and "the sequester" there was even plenty of it for the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act in the classic favorite "we'll fix it later".

What happens the power to cope with issues diminishes and more garbage and worse deals get piled on before any fixing is done and new lower levels of new normal cause the original concerns to be so buried as to never be seen again.

To make this pitch to give cover to the shit piling that actually CAN HAPPEN makes it totally stink to me. What we can and will do is more job killing, wage crushing, sovereignty destroying "free trade" deals and of course pissing away blood and treasure further destabilizing and spreading entropy in the middle east at the expense of the desperate needs of the people while fist pumping about drill, baby, drill and frack, baby, frack.

Well, that is has no reason to work, hasn't worked, isn't currently working, and there is consequently no basis to expect it to begin to work now. It is not my "plan" I'm not required to find sense in it, there is little difference than citing magic and the like as your rationale.

Pure faith based nonsense and reasoning based on hocus-pocus. Bullshit to feed to the willing mark so they can lie to themselves another go a round rather than face the ever snowballing truth in turn doing their part to maintain the mass delusion.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Okay. n/t

[Orrex]

26. By logical extension, Democrats will never be able to do anything, ever

Republicans have this magical ability to block legislation when they're in the majority, and they have this magical ability to block legislation when they're in the minority. Amazing!

It would be far better, in fact, for Democrats to "sit on their hands" rather than constantly lamenting how mean ol' Republicans keep them from getting anything done.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. I suppose that made logical sense ...

when you were typing it.

Republicans have this magical ability to block legislation when they're in the majority, and they have this magical ability to block legislation when they're in the minority. Amazing!

Not amazing ... a reflection of reality. See republicans have this trait ... completely foreign to Democrats/liberals; they vote in lockstep ... period. And that gives them the ability to obstruct, whether in the majority or minority.

[Orrex]

28. You're not actually making what might be called a point

1. Democrats don't propose wish-list legislation when they're the majority because it won't pass, and it'll make them look bad or something.

2. Democrats do propose wish-list legislation when they're the minority because it won't pass, and it'll make them look good or something.

3. In fact, it'll make them look so good that they can campaign on it, so that they can stay in office and return to step 1.


The solution to Republican lockstep sure as hell isn't to keep one's powder dry, as Dems have done for all of recent memory.


If it pleases you to praise them for their futile electoral posturing, then by all means do so. But let's not pretend that they're doing anything more than prepping for their own reelection, so that they can continue to do nothing in 2016 and beyond.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Okay ...

But I think we define the word majority differently ... to me having a couple more swishy votes (that cannot be counted on) is not a political majority sufficient to pass legislation.

If/when we get that, we will see progressive legislation proposed and passed (just like in the good old FDR days) and that all starts with winning (re-winning) elections ... and that starts with having a clear and distinguishing message ... and that is now.

[Orrex]

33. I'll believe it when I see it

What you're saying is a reasonable explanation for why Dems are proposing this non-starter DOA legislation now, when they risk nothing and it has no chance to pass.

Nothing that you've said has done anything to justify why Dems didn't propose this legislation at any time previously during Obama's (or Bush's, for that matter).


And, predictably, DU is tripping over itself with delight at the Dems' new display of alleged legislative courage, when in fact it's nothing more than election-prep posturing.

If they get it passed, now or later, I'll happily eat my words. If they don't? Well, I've been right once or twice before.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Yes, I have ...

Nothing that you've said has done anything to justify why Dems didn't propose this legislation at any time previously during Obama's (or Bush's, for that matter).

Right here:

Question: But republicans will block it now! What's the difference?

Answer: The 2016 elections! If these Bills had been introduced at any time before now ... they would be long forgotten by election day 2016. By doing it now, every Democratic candidate has a ready made campaign issue and every republican candidate is on the defensive. And, as an added bonus, introducing it now will affect the 2016 primaries, forcing Democratic primary candidates to pick a side on the issue!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6122833

In this very thread.

And, predictably, DU is tripping over itself with delight at the Dems' new display of alleged legislative courage, when in fact it's nothing more than election-prep posturing.

Yes ... It is election-prep, and maybe even posturing; however, it is a necessary step if Democrats ever hope to see the majorities required to pass the legislation that we want to see passed.

It seems that many are happy placing Democrats in a critical double bind ... when Democrats don't introduce legislation, they are feckless, despite the calculation that the legislation can't pass; when Democrats do introduce legislation, with the same can't pass calculation, they are disingenuous posers ... they should have done it earlier.

But I guess it's better to do a show bill that shows "spine"; but, accomplishes nothing, than do a show bill that sets the stage to elect Democrats.

[Orrex]

35. Again, we'll see.

If these Bills had been introduced at any time before now ... they would be long forgotten by election day 2016.

Meh. Introducing them at the start of 2015 is more or less equivalent to introducing them at the start of 1915. Ancient history by the time the damselfly news cycle rolls around to the elections. Why are you convinced that these proposals would have doomed them in '14 but will redeem them in '16?

Yes ... It is election-prep, and maybe even posturing; however, it is a necessary step if Democrats ever hope to see the majorities required to pass the legislation that we want to see passed.

As before, that's a reasonable argument for why they might do it now, but it's a great argument for why they should have done it six months ago.

You're suggesting that the Democrats should always plan to win the next election, and the current election (and legislative cycle) can go to hell. You complain about putting the Dems in a "critical double bind," but that's a false accusation. ON the contrary, I would be thrilled to see them pushing this legislation now IF they'd also pushed it during the previous Congress. The fact that they waited--regardless of your rosy assessment--makes them look like cynical politicians rather than public servants doing the people's work.

But I guess it's better to do a show bill that shows "spine"; but, accomplishes nothing, than do a show bill that sets the stage to elect Democrats.

Again, I'll believe it when I see it and will admit my error if proven wrong. If Dems don't ride into office on a wave of brilliant non-starter legislation, will you publicly admit that you overestimated the strength of their strategy?

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. ...

Why are you convinced that these proposals would have doomed them in '14 but will redeem them in '16?

Remember the make-up of the districts that Democrats had to defend in 2014 ... no progressive legislation was/would have been attractive to Red state voters. Now ... look at the make-up of the districts in play for 2016. They are much more sympathetic to progressive legislation. So, (hopefully, if for no other reason than to get elected/re-elected) Democrats learned from 2014 and will not run from President Obama and Democratic maneuverings.

As before, that's a reasonable argument for why they might do it now, but it's a great argument for why they should have done it six months ago.

See the above.

You're suggesting that the Democrats should always plan to win the next election, and the current election (and legislative cycle) can go to hell.

No ... I am stating strategy is the next move, the present is too late to affect.

The fact that they waited--regardless of your rosy assessment--makes them look like cynical politicians rather than public servants doing the people's work.

I can appreciate that.

Again, I'll believe it when I see it and will admit my error if proven wrong. If Dems don't ride into office on a wave of brilliant non-starter legislation, will you publicly admit that you overestimated the strength of their strategy?

Yes I will ... Bookmark it ... If Democrats run on the (any) progressive legislation introduced in 2015 (including the instant legislation) and lose/fail to gain in 2016 ... I will shout the error(s) of my rosy-eyed ways.

[brett_jv]

41. I just have one question ... if this is such a GREAT campaign strategy ...

You know, "for 2016" ...

Why didn't our Democrats just introduce these progressive measures in, oh ... June of 2014?

Maybe they don't pass then, but they sure as hell don't pass NOW. And this stuff will be long forgotten in Nov. 2016.

By ANY logical measure, if this is a 'winning strategy' for right now ... electorally ... why the hell didn't they do it ... last summer ... or so, when an election was on the horizon?

I'm not calling out Bernie in any way, he's been calling for CU reform/repeal and introducing bills related to it for years now ... I mean (many of) the rest of them.

Why now? Seriously ... it's such blatant 'posturing for the base' it's not even funny. Very few of these people (again, Bernie notwithstanding, and a few others) appear to ACTUALLY CARE ... about CFR, or are actually willing to go to mat for it.

Sorry but it's VERY difficult for many of us to cheer this kind of move ... very much has a 'too little, too late' feel to it. If you really CARED, and you really had BALLS, Senators (not Bernie), you should've nutted up last friggin' summer.

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. All of your questions/concerns have been addressed ...

particularly here:

Remember the make-up of the districts that Democrats had to defend in 2014 ... no progressive legislation was/would have been attractive to Red state voters. Now ... look at the make-up of the districts in play for 2016. They are much more sympathetic to progressive legislation, and the candidates representing that legislation. So, (hopefully, if for no other reason than to get elected/re-elected) Democrats learned from 2014 and will not run from President Obama and Democratic maneuverings.

[rtracey]

36. totally agree

Why now, why not when we had the Senate. They may or would not have passed, but it would have shown the american people, at least they were trying.....

[Octafish]

25. Oh yeah.

Funny, that.

[SunSeeker]

3. K & R

[Fred Sanders]

4. The fact they will not pass the GOP Congress has nothing to with what good ideas they are.

If you think they should sit on their hands and let Congress do things like breach decades old diplomatic protocol without a fight....well then please proceed.

[Orrex]

7. Why did they not push these terrific ideas when they held the Senate?

It's curious that they've suddenly discovered these great ideas just weeks after Repubs took control.

[Fred Sanders]

8. They had the ideas all along, this is procedurally a different thing to bring a vote to the Senate floor on a

Bill and offering amendments to opposition controlled bills.

[Orrex]

9. Well, yeah

The point is that they didn't even mention these great ideas.

For all the world, it looks like a cowardly, cynical gesture designed to feather their reelection nests without actually having to vote for these bold ideas.

[Fred Sanders]

10. Sorry, have to agree to disagree on that, I think it is important.

[malthaussen]

15. Ya think, Fred?

Standard politics 101: present bills that don't have a snowball's chance so you can look like a tough guy. Would serve them right if the bills were passed -- I'd love to see how they'd cravenly escape. This is what you might call disgusting.

-- Mal

[Orrex]

21. ^^That

[Orrex]

20. It was also important six months ago

But our brave Democratic legislators couldn't be bothered to raise these issues when they held the Senate.

Were they keeping their powder dry?

[KoKo]

13. Fred, there are Citzens Group actions going on out there, too...though. Here:

It's not just Congress but local efforts. If Congress can't do it then at least we can keep trying on the ground in our own states. And, support the actions of National Groups who have Lobbyists who can help us Statewide in our efforts. I belong to "Common Cause" and getting legislation passed in my state is a priority to try roll back some of the effects of "Citizens' United."

This is a good read about some of the efforts that took place yesterday:

In case you missed it:

On 5th Anniversary of "Citizens United" Citizen Groups Nationwide Act to Introduce Legislation


http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10026122391

[Fred Sanders]

14. Thank you. If folks only knew what a piece of judicial crap CU was , from every angle, not just

the corporate cash engorged with CU money media angle that is also covered up.
The battles we should be fighting with the GOP only that are also being battled out at DU is a distraction.

[malthaussen]

16. Might want to edit that.

CU is the piece of crap... DU is something else.

-- Mal

[Fred Sanders]

19. Thanks. Good thing the context was in the same line, can not afford another misunderstanding.

[NCTraveler]

6. K to go along with the R. nt.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. Yes! Now, it's OUR turn to act ...

I encourage everyone reading this to encourage everyone they know to send (links to) the 12 Bills to their elected representatives and ask for them to respond.

Later tonight, I will post my email to my representatives ... with my little twist. You might wish to wait for my letter to use as a template ... I think you will like my approach.

[NightWatcher]

17. now they have the political cover of knowing that they'll never pass

Big talk with no action. I think that Bernie would put these bills up anytime, but the rest of them waited for political cover to show what big Progressives that can be.

Is this the Progressive version of voting against the ACA for repukes when they knew it wouldn't pass, so that they can fund raise off of it?

[99th_Monkey]

18. Why do Dems lead better from behind?

No matter. Better late than never, and so on.

It is important to force ReThugs to show their filthy hands,
by having to publicly vote against We the People and
ultimately against democracy itself.

[KoKo]

24. Gotta Kick this for a bit of Democratic SPINE...

I know some say it goes NOWHERE...(and there's a bit of me that agrees) ....but, when they show a "bit of spine" let's hope things are SO BAD OUT THERE....they they know they needed that bit of steel.

We shall see....but, when they try to promote "12 Bills" in Obama's Lame Duck Admin....let's try to take them seriously for their last GASP...

I'm a Democrat on the verge of changing registration to "Independent" ....but, if they FOLLOW THROUGH...I might rethink.

Remember...we Dems do better when Repubs are in Power. Our "Activist Juices" get flowing.

Whatever.... I think it's a good attempt at starting reform. But, continuing Locally......is our best chance and there are groups and grassroots working.

Look for them in YOUR STATE.

[Scuba]

29. Kabuki theater.

[HereSince1628]

45. Yes, but will the shows be popular? Maybe this is a test

This might seen as either of at least 2 things.... probably more possible but I'm not so creative this morning...

it might be a deceitful roll out of what DCdems don't support, but they couldn't do that if they didn't believe that there was real support for these ideas, and this rollout is a test for the depth of support.

it might also be a way to push the content of the presidential campaign conversations for 2016, that would also depend upon their believing that the base might support such things and this rollout is a test of the depth of that support.

[Scuba]

46. Where were these ideas in 2009 and 2010? Why didn't they secure voting rights then?

[HereSince1628]

47. Wouldn't that view require dems to have not changed or learned anything since 2009?

Couldn't their membership have changed or those still hanging on learned something? Couldn't, say awareness of popular reaction to Elizabeth Warren be a factor?

It's not that I disagree that this effort seems hopeless in terms of successful legislation in this congress.

I don't think it's directed at such success at all.

I'm trying to keep an open mind to the possibility that there might be something useful going on.

I would hope it's an attempt to push rather more progressive ideas into content of the 2016 campaign.

But I'm cynical enough to think that DCdems are in fact doing this mostly for show. From the controlling oligarch's point of view, one can speculate this is an attempt to destroy progressive populism in its crib. By being able to say something like look what happened we fought the good fight (when it was too late) and we lost.

But that requires rather cynicism bordering on CT.

And it isn't just congressional dems. Obama's administration is doing the same thing, I've posted such recognition in other threads.

At face value it seems now that they have not chance to move any legislation they are talking the good talk.

[Chakaconcarne]

38. What a bunch of crap....

They could have done this (and a whole bunch more) in 2009, but they didn't.. So this is nothing more than a show... No one is going to remember their doing this when 2016 hits and chances are we are not going to see a bunch of campaign ads from democrats touting these bills.

[davidpdx]

42. They are all great ideas

Too bad they will all go down in flames. Of course the bills banning abortion will be at the top of the list. Thank god for priorities .

[davidn3600]

43. Congress cannot overturn Citizens United

That can only be done with Constitutional amendment, or the Supreme Court has to reverse themselves (which rarely happens).

So any of these proposed laws have a very limited effect, even if they were to pass.