The Conservative Reform Network Blog

Fitzpatrick? Gerlach? Meehan? Adcock – Disclose DISCLOSE

This post from the Thomas Jefferson Club succinctly lays out what is wrong with DISCLOSE and exposes Rep. Murphy’s phony explanation. And the Fitzpatrick Campaign? Adcock Campaign? Meehan Campaign? Gerlach Campaign? What say you?

As all of you are likely aware, the DISCLOSE act denies many the right of Free Expression as this synopsis explicates. Thanks to TJClub, I am made aware and reminded of Rep. Murphy’s vote. The DISCLOSE act is another one of the bills that gives some Americans, more rights than other Americans. The New York Times and the liberal media have had special rights since the passage of McCain Feingold.

Very well done exposition of DISCLOSE and Murphy’s fundraising. Intellectual quality is to be expected of the Constitutionally Conservative Thomas Jefferson Club which does what campaigns should be doing.

Some interesting data on Rep. Murphy’s fundraising is also presented by the intellectually energetic TJ Club.

I have to wonder, though, what Mike Fitzpatrick thinks of this bill, if anything. Does he know what it is and what is wrong with it? Not a work from the Fitzpatrick Campaign on this crucial issue of Freedom of Expression. Given Fitzpatrick’s silence on the tin goddess Pat Poprik’s putting her book on the neck of independent grassroots right of free speech on election day when some dared to challenge her power, one may think Mike Fitzpatrick is not wholly disapproving.

Note:  It is a mistake to try to deny American’s of their Rights as Americans.

 [READ MORE]

Murphy Comes Down on the Side of the Unions (Surprise!)

By thomasjeffersonclubblog

Congressman Patrick Murphy (PA, D, 8th) is at it again, exaggerating his importance and coming down on the side of the unions.

In his press release concerning the DISCLOSE act (HR5175) he says he sponsored an amendment to increase transparency. From the press release:

(Washington, DC) – Today, Congressman Patrick Murphy’s (D-PA) bipartisan amendment to increase transparency in political advertisements sponsored by corporations passed the U.S. House of Representatives as part of the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175). His amendment requires that the corporate backers of political ads disclose the location of their company, so that residents of Bucks County would know if outsiders are attempting to influence their elections. If the sponsor of the ad is an individual, they would have to disclose the city in which they reside. The amendment was endorsed by Public Citizen, a national consumer advocacy organization.

Murphy’s amendment was included in a broader bill that seeks to undo the damage caused by the radical Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed corporations and foreign interests to flood the political process with an unlimited amount of money. The DISCLOSE Act mitigates the harmful effects of the decision by increasing transparency in campaign spending through ad disclaimers. By requiring corporations to “stand by their ads,” the bill allows for a more transparent political process and gives viewers important information about who is paying to influence elections. What’s at stake with this bill is the constitutional right of voters to know the identity of the organizations spending money to influence their federal elections…

Murphy added that his amendment adds further transparency to the political process by ensuring that people can know if an individual or corporation outside the district is trying to influence a campaign.

Too bad Murphy isn’t so eager to disclose how much money he receives from people and groups outside of Bucks County, as we mentioned in Patrick Murphy, Congressman to the Stars, Patrick Murphy, Congressman to the Stars, Part II, Patrick Murphy, Congressman to the Stars, Part III, and More Info on Congressman Patrick Murphy and Fundraising. However, as, usual, he’s giving his version of the situation. Here’s the rest of the story:

From Publius Forum:

H.R. 5175 also known as the “Disclose” Act is a bill, which will amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The Disclose Act will make participation from corporations and independent citizen groups extremely difficult in the election process. The Bill is scheduled for vote late this week in the House of Representatives.

David Ratowitz, the Republican Candidate for the Illinois 5th Congressional District, said, “The so-called Disclose Act is nothing but a cynical “incumbent-protection bill” written by politicians desperate to save their jobs in an anti incumbent year.”

The purpose of this bill is very blatantly to chill political dissent in America and protect the current majority in Congress. The bill threatens small business trade associations and independent citizen groups with expensive litigation and criminal prosecutions for exercising their 1st Amendment rights. The bill makes no distinction between electioneering and issue advocacy. The exceptions provided by this dishonest bill all favor groups that support current incumbents and rely on them to deliver public financing for their private benefit: for example corporations with partial foreign ownership suffer from this bill, but unions with equivalent foreign participation, such as SEIU are specifically exempted. Likewise, small businesses that receive government contracts – even competitively awarded contracts must adhere to the bills requirements, but public sector employee unions are exempted.

This bill represents the worst sort of censorship: the notion that those who support the powers that be may speak, but those who oppose the power structure may not.

“No honest Congressman can support a bill that so blatantly limits speech on one side of a debate but leaves speech unfettered on the other.” Said Ratowitz.

And here’s John Boehner’s response: (R, OH)

Washington - Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) issued the following statement on the Democrats’ unconstitutional bill designed to silence their political opponents:

“The First Amendment says ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.’  It’s first for a reason.  Freedom of speech is the basis of our democracy.  The purpose of this bill, plain and simple, is to allow Democrats to use their Majority in this House to silence their political opponents.  This is a backroom deal to shred our Constitution for raw, ugly, partisan gain.

“With this misguided bill, Democrats would restrict free speech and violate the First Amendment.  But not for everyone.  This bill would muzzle small businesses but protect labor unions.  It allows the Humane Society to speak freely, but not the Farm Bureau.  It would protect the AARP’s rights, but not 60-Plus.  And lastly it would protect the National Rifle Association but not the National Right to Life.  The NRA is carved out and gets a special deal in this bill.  The NRA is all about protecting the Second Amendment, but apparently its leaders don’t care about protecting the First Amendment.  That’s very disappointing.

“Since the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the First Amendment, Democrats have maintained their bill would ‘apply equally across the board’ to corporations, labor unions and advocacy organizations alike.  Instead, they produced a bill full of loopholes designed to help their friends while silencing their political opponents. We in this House take an oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.’  A vote for this bill violates that oath.”

As usual, Murphy doesn’t tell the whole truth, just the version he wants voters to hear.