Yesterday, the Hotline reported that Senate Democrats plan to force another vote on the DISCLOSE Act “to score political points.”
This is not exactly a surprise, as Schumer has said he planned to bring up DISCLOSE multiple times: “[W]e will go back at this bill again and again and again until we pass it,” he told The Hill last month after the DISCLOSE Act failed to clear a procedural vote in the Senate.
Also consider this quote from an anonymous Democratic aide—ironic, no?—in Politico on the potential political benefit of another DISCLOSE vote: “Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to bring this up again in September, when you give it a chance to crystallize the position of Democrats as standing for the public’s interest and Republicans [as standing] against it,” the aide said. “You let this vote sit out there for six weeks in these senators’ states—there are a lot of good-government groups where this is their top priority—and you build an aggressive campaign highlighting these senators’ votes on this, and you pressure them to change their minds.”
Perhaps Democrats were also emboldened by a comment sourced to an anonymous GOP aides that “delaying the date the bill would go into effect—so that it wouldn’t govern the upcoming election—might attract some Republican votes.”
Democrats are targeting three moderate Senate Republicans: Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts.
Snowe, though, has said point blank that changing the timing of the bill’s effective date “would not earn her vote.”
Also, the criticisms of Brown and Collins have been much more vocal on the substance of the bill than Snowe (who really only publicly objected to the timing and the prioritization over other issues).
Brown slammed the bill’s disparate treatment of unions and corporations in a letter to “reform” groups:
Even more astonishing, this bill does not treat all organizations equally and does not apply to everyone. For example, not all the disclosure requirements apply to labor unions and other special interest groups-despite these groups being among the most active political organizations. Labor unions and their political action committees spent more than $450 million to help their allies in 2008, and they have already pledged to spend upwards of $100 million in the midterms. Yet they would be carved out of this legislation and not face the same regulations that would apply to everyone else.
Schumer tweaked the bill to supposedly address this concern, but it only removed a carveout added in the House at the last minute. The bill’s prohibitions on the political spending of government contractors and companies with international investment—as well as the disclosure thresholds—still advantage unions. Moreover, Brown shares the priority concerns of Snowe: “[T]his bill is being pushed when our country has almost double digit unemployment. We must return our focus to job creation,” he wrote.
Collins has also blasted the broad substance of the bill:
The partisan proposal advanced by Senator Schumer is not the remedy… Unfortunately, the Senate Majority Leader chose to bring forward a bill that doesn’t live up to its title. It was drafted by Democrats behind closed doors. No committee hearings were ever held on this legislation; therefore, there never was an opportunity to make any changes to this bill or mark-up in the committee process before we were asked to consider it… “The DISCLOSE Act would move away from election laws in this country that treat unions and corporations alike. Instead, it would favor union speech over corporate speech. The bill would provide a clear and unfair advantage to unions, while either shutting other organizations out of the election process or subjecting them to onerous reporting requirements that would not apply to unions. For example, a defense contractor would not be able to finance independent campaign expenditures, but the union representing the contractor’s workforce would be able to do so. This unequal treatment is what any campaign finance reform legislation should protect against. I am also disappointed that this bill continues to contain so many carve outs and exemptions that favor some grassroots organizations over others. This is discriminatory, unconstitutional and unfair. Finally, the Senate should remain focused on the number one issue facing our country: jobs and the economy.”
So, Collins is opposed to the bill on multiple fronts: (1) it’s a partisan effort, (2) no hearings and no attempt to offer changes, (3) favor union over corporate speech, (4) carve outs for the NRA and other large groups and (5) the Senate’s priority should be jobs and the economy.
It’s understandable that reform groups would want to push a story line that simply tweaking the effective date of the DISCLOSE Act would win over moderate Republicans, but that seems to be just wishful thinking.
Ultimately, this bill still has the same speech prohibitions and onerous regulations. It would chill speech no matter if it goes into effect for this election cycle or in 2012.
