July 26, 2010 3:32 PM

Obama Slams GOP For Opposing DISCLOSE Act Meant to Expose "Shadow Groups" Behind Ads

By
Brian Montopoli
Topics
Campaign 2010 ,
Domestic Issues

President Barack Obama delivers remarks on campaign finance reform, Monday, July 26, 2010, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington.

(Credit: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Updated 4:16 p.m. Eastern Time

President Obama today urged the Senate to pass the DISCLOSE Act, a bill designed to address the Supreme Court's controversial Citizen's United decision allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign advertising.

He also harshly criticized Republicans for standing in the way of passage, using campaign trail-type rhetoric in the Rose Garden.

Tomorrow's planned vote on DISCLOSE in the Senate, he said, is "about how much influence special interests should have over our democracy."

He said that under the current rules, special interests "can hide behind a name like 'Citizens for a Better Future,' even if a more accurate name would be 'Companies for Weaker Oversight.'"

The president said "shadow groups" are already building war chests to spend to influence the 2010 midterm elections.

"Imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians," Mr. Obama said, discussing how a company or group could threaten to run "an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign" against a politician who opposes its agenda.

The president said passing DISCLOSE should be "common sense."

"You'd think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections would not be a partisan issue, but of course this is Washington in 2010," he said.

Mr. Obama criticized Republicans for trying to keep DISCLOSE from coming up for a vote, linking their opposition to their standing in the way of an extension of unemployment benefits.

"On issue after issue, we are trying to move America forward and they keep trying to take us back," he said.

Also known as the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, the DISCLOSE Act mandates that corporations and unions spending on campaigns and running political advertising publicly identify top donors and related information.

It would also restrict foreign-controlled corporations from spending money in U.S. elections.

The House passed the DISCLOSE Act last month.

In his remarks, Mr. Obama invoked a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who warned against corporate influence in elections because he "didn't want everybody else being drowned out."

A vote against the bill, he said, is a vote to "allow corporate and special interest takeover of our elections."

In response to the president's remarks, Michael Steel, spokesman for House Republican Leader John Boehner, said Mr. Obama is ignoring "serious problems" to push "a bill to improve Washington Democrats' electoral prospects."

And Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, said that "the mere suggestion that a bill designed to save politicians' jobs should take precedent over helping millions of Americans find work is an embarrassing indictment of Democrats' priorities."

If the DISLCOSE Act passes, corporations and unions would have to disclose the top five donors in their political ads. In addition, the head of a company or group behind an ad would be required to appear in it, much like a candidate now has to "approve this message."

The bill exempts certain organizations with more than 500,000 members, including the NRA, AARP and the Humane Society, from the requirements.

The exemptions angered both liberals who were upset over concessions to the NRA as well as conservatives angry that the pro-gun lobby agreed not to oppose the legislation. Critics have also noted the irony that a bill meant to rein in special interests includes a carve-out for some of them.

Conservative groups have cast DISCLOSE as an impingement on free speech.

"With millions of Americans out of work, you would think the Senate would focus its efforts on creating American jobs rather than spending time on a bill designed to protect their own," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue said in a statement today. "The DISCLOSE Act is a perfect example of Washington politics at its absolute worst, and at a time when the country can afford it least. Legislation that silences incumbent politicians' critics and exempts their political friends should never be considered in America."

The Chamber of Commerce is a right-leaning group planning to spend $75 million to influence the midterm elections. Under the DISCLOSE Act it would be forced to disclose its top donors in its advertising. More than 300 business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, today sent a letter to the Senate opposing the DISCLOSE Act.


Add a Comment See all 47 Comments
by Peter_Brito July 27, 2010 8:40 PM EDT
This legislation is just common sense. To boost my point, for years I thought the Chamber of Commerce was a federal governmental institution, now I come to see that they are really a right wing lobbying group. Do America a favor and pass this. If you're honest you have nothing to hide.
Reply to this comment
by afmcalax July 27, 2010 12:41 PM EDT
Why would anyone be against a bill that says if you are going to say or print something you must openly identify yourself? No front organizations. Look at all the correct sounding names that turn out to be sponsored by the same companies that are affected by pending legislation. This truth in advertising law has absolutely no drawbacks. For Republicans to basically say they want to allow corporations to continue to mislead and spew forth their propaganda with no accountability shows their lack of morals and honesty.
Reply to this comment
by facelessdrone2005 July 27, 2010 12:39 PM EDT
Granted that the law has its flaws, but any disclosure is better than NONE, which is what we have now. Where is the Republican counterproposal to fix the flaws by requiring MORE disclosure? They criticize that it doesn't provide adequate disclosure but in reality they don't want ANY disclosure, which is why they have no such counterproposal. Again, they show themselves to be the party of NO with NO IDEAS.
Reply to this comment
by ken1dall July 27, 2010 11:43 AM EDT
?The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The public can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.?

Author Unknown
Reply to this comment
by Mortar_29 July 27, 2010 12:17 PM EDT
Good point.
by Jason_Clearbrook July 27, 2010 11:16 AM EDT
However, Mr. Face does not disclose anything near the Truth about this law by saying anything like: "However, a union with foreign ties would not fall under this restriction."

Duh, like that is the *only* advantage the Unions gain from this.

Let it be said clearly: This Law, if passed, will have motions everywhere in Federal Courts for Injunctions against enforcement of this Law. I think this is highly likely to succeed, since the manner in which this law is being enacted (taking effect immediately -- without proper time for proper judicial review) and the blatent discriminations in this Law (clearly favoring the Unions and the Democratic Party) demand that the courst restore the status quo ante, even if only temporarily until this matter can be decided in proper court proceedings.

Expect that at least one Federal Judge will Grant such an Injunction, and that other Judges, knowing they will look like fools if they do not agree to stop such a blatent power grab by the Democrats, will follow their lead. Some won't, and the matters will be sent to the Appeals Courts.
Reply to this comment
by chevyhotrod July 27, 2010 7:10 AM EDT
by johnnierr July 26, 2010 9:57 PM EDT
So you want to talk Job Loss?

Are you aware that, when we kicked Bush and the Republicans out in 2009, we were losing 800,000 jobs -- per month??

Are you aware that, almost immediately after President Obama took office, the job loss turned around almost immediately?? And has continued to do so??

But don't take my word for it... please... cut Rush off and do your own homework for a change. It'll be much more convincing that way.



This is one of the most ridiculous posts I have read. First, the Democrats took over the Senate and the House in Jan 2007, not 2009.

Second, after the stimulus was signed into law with a Democrat President, Democrat Senate and Democrat House we have lost 4 million jobs. The job market continues to decline to this day. Where I work they have been laying off constantly and are looking at having another large layoff in the coming months.

Also, look up campaign contributions for AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, Goldman Sacks for the past 20 years. You might actually learn something.

When Chris Dodd and Barney Frank took over the financial services, housing and banking committees 18 months later the economy almost completely collapsed.

Why don't you do your homework before you post such utter propaganda?

The increasing amount of wealth and political power is being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands and all the wealth and power is being concentrated in Washington DC by only a very small few out of 300 million people.

Tax Year 2007 Bottom 50% 2.89% of all federal revenue
Tax Year 2006 Bottom 50% 2.99% of all federal revenue
Tax Year 2005 Bottom 50% 3.07% of all federal revenue
Tax Year 2004 Bottom 50% 3.30% of all federal revenue
Tax Year 2003 Bottom 50% 3.46% of all federal revenue
Tax Year 2002 Bottom 50% 3.50% of all federal revenue
Tax Year 2001 Bottom 50% 3.97% of all federal revenue
Tax Year 2000 Bottom 50% 3.91% of all federal revenue
Tax Year 1999 Bottom 50% 4.00% of all federal revenue

Facts, the rich were paying more under President Bush and the so call average American is paying less and less over the past 10 years.
Reply to this comment
by dinkydog1 July 27, 2010 9:12 AM EDT
You are incorrect. You figures take in account only Federal Income tax compairison by percentage. The rich were paying a higher percentage but their overall taxes were reduced dramatacly under Bush.
by chevyhotrod July 27, 2010 9:39 AM EDT
My point was "The rich were paying a higher percentage" thank you for pointing that out. Yes taxes were reduced dramatically for everyone under the Bush administration, but the so called wealthy ended up paying a higher percentage of the overall federal revenue. The facts/figures speak for themselves.
See all 4 Replies
by michaelm07 July 27, 2010 2:36 AM EDT
By now, anything this president says is hollow. After he's nailed in the Lockerbie lie his words mean nothing. Not even a teleprompter can help him now.

Meanwhile, Michelle and the youngest jet off to Spain on an "official" vacation. It is only stated as official because the White House is getting senstive to all the citizen's complaints about them flyinf all over and getting the dog a private jet at tax payer's expense. They must of called King Juan Carlos and said "hey, we want to come over and have a good time, can you set aside 5 minutes to meet the wife so we can write the trip off as a business expense?"
Reply to this comment
by themooniac July 27, 2010 12:31 AM EDT
Why not disclose campaign funding?
Reply to this comment
by 1renegade July 27, 2010 12:09 AM EDT
Amazing that our President doesn't know that the US is a republic not a democracy.
Reply to this comment
by abbe91 July 27, 2010 5:45 AM EDT
It was a republic only under Bush. Democracy has only been restored in the republic when he left.
by Mortar_29 July 27, 2010 10:51 AM EDT
Restored? Democracy was never the form of government we have...nor would we want a democracy. Democracy is the WORST form of government.
by Shocktribe July 26, 2010 11:01 PM EDT
Unions are exempt. In word they are included in the bill. In deed however, they are exempt, because their average union dues are under the $600 "threshold" of the bill. Since dues are the unions main source of money, their donors are under the bill's threshold. This was worked out with the unions in mind. This is nothing more than a way for democrats to stop up opponents' funds, while they stay in the "shadow groups" pockets. This is Chicago politics at their worst, right here.
Reply to this comment
by wmb1957 July 26, 2010 11:25 PM EDT
Don't blame the Republicans from being against it then.

Unions are way more of a problem for campaign ads then Corporations.
See all 47 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...