I don’t know enough about this act to comment. This is the statement from Tom Perriello’s website. See his video as well.
I do find it interesting that in his video he says it is part of decency to say “this is who I am” but we still don’t even know if he resides in the 5th district.
06/24/10
Congressman Tom Perriello’s effort to protect U.S. elections from foreign influence achieved a significant victory today by passing the U.S. House as part of the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175). In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which allowed for unlimited corporate spending in electioneering activity, Rep. Perriello introduced H.R. 4523, the Save Our Democracy From Foreign Influence Act of 2010, which would prohibit corporations with foreign shareholders from making contributions or expenditures in American elections. Today, the House passed by voice vote an amendment sponsored by Perriello to achieve a similar goal.
“The Constitution begins, ‘We the people,’ not ‘We the corporations’ or ‘We the foreign corporations.’ This legislation and my amendment provide critical protections for our democracy so that no foreign entity can come in and influence our elections. China already owns too much of our debt; let’s not sell them our democracy as well,” said Perriello. “Where I come from, people aren’t afraid to put their name by what they say. We need those same Main Street values of accountability and decency in our politics, too. The DISCLOSE act does just that by requiring the big banks, big oil companies, and big insurance companies to put their names on their ads just as clear as day.”
The DISCLOSE Act passed today with bipartisan support. The bill would increase transparency in political advertising by requiring corporations, organizations, and special interest groups to stand by ads just like candidates do. It will also prevent bailed-out banks, large government contractors, and corporations controlled by foreign governments from creating front groups and attempting to manipulate elections anonymously.
The bill exempts from donor disclosure requirements groups like the National Rifle Association, 501(c)(4)s that have more than 500,000 dues-paying members, with members in all 50 states, that receive no more than 15% of their funding from corporations or labor unions, and that have been in existence over 10 years. Last week, Perriello defended the NRA against liberal and conservative attacks saying, “The DISCLOSE Act is about taking control of our politics away from corporate front groups and handing it back to the people. The NRA, with its four million dues-paying members, is the epitome of people-powered politics and they deserve to have their voices heard in elections. Liberals may not like the NRA’s beliefs but they should admire their people-powered organizing.”
Background information on the DISCLOSE Act:
- Prevents Taxpayer Funds from Going to Campaign Ads: Prevents corporations that have received significant taxpayer funds, such as large government contractors and bailed-out banks, from making independent expenditures and electioneering communications.
- Limits Foreign Influence in American Elections: Extends existing prohibitions on campaign contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations in which foreign nationals have significant control. (Rep. Perriello-sponsored amendment)
- Increases Sunlight on Funders of Ads: Requires corporate CEOs to appear on camera to say that he or she “approves this message” funded by their company – just like current law requires candidates to do.
- Strengthens Donor Disclosure by Corporations, Unions, and 504 (c)(4)s, (6)s, and 527s: Requires full and timely disclosure of campaign-related expenditures made by these organizations, including corporations and labor organizations.
if Perriello wants to come clean with his district about campaign finance then : He will need to distant himself from any money funneled thru any Obama/DNC/OFA/SEIU organization. There is foreign money there that those organizations raised in Pres. election where contributions came thru credit cards–donors all over the world. (several right wing bloggers had foreign friends donate $1 to Obama/DNC/OFA this way to see if it worked–it did). (go to archives at gatewaypundit, ace & hotair)
and to the extent there is anything positive in this law, let’s hope it can be enforced even-handedly. (looking at you Eric Holder)
if he resides in the 5th district? um… he does. he resides in albemarle county. but, to be fair, he spends most of his time in-district traveling to meet folks all over.
Michael wake up, you can’t even get Tommy boy on the phone.If he spends most of his in-district time traveling to meet folks all over why doesn’t he have a calendar on his web page so everyone can make it easy for him to meet with them ?
Till last December he didn’t even own property in the fifth district. Give us a break. So we are to believe that Tommy boy is a mommy’s boy and was living at his moms?
this will sound like a defense of Perriello which it is not. But does the law even require that a congressional candidate reside in the district? (see Morgan Griffith at time of his announcement). 2d question: must the candidate reside in the district once they take office?
and michael: I hope Perriello goes down to his new bike trail in Martinsville to meet the 20+% unemployed there.
Allow me to share my views and the NRA views of what this really is: The following is an email I sent to the NRA and also their response to me. Please pay close attention to the third paragraph of their response: Now do you really want to thank Tom for this vote?
Thank you very much for your email and sharing your thoughts on H.R. 5175.
I have been an NRA Board member for some years and currently serve as NRA’s First Vice-President — that you may know. What you may not know is that I have been in the forefront of the fight against liberal attempts to tilt the political playing field their way for decades through what they like to call campaign finance reform. This is a battle that began in the seventies when I put together the case that went to the United States Supreme Court known as Buckley v. Valeo. I was a vocal opponent of the so-called McCain-Feingold “reforms” that shackled groups like the NRA in recent years, and I have served as a First Amendment Fellow at Vanderbilt University’s Freedom Forum.
I can assure you that I would never countenance a “deal” of the sort you think the NRA made with Congress to further Democratic attempts to restrict political speech. I consider such restrictions to be not only repugnant, but blatantly unconstitutional, an opinion shared by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox.
The so-called “DISCLOSE ACT” is a horrible piece of legislation designed to do exactly what you suggest. It would require advocacy groups to run a regulatory gauntlet designed to make it very difficult for many of them to play the role for which they were formed and is both bad policy and flies in the face of recent Supreme Court decisions.
But I’m afraid there’s more … particularly how it would affect the NRA. When you think of the NRA you no doubt think mostly about the NRA’s advocacy on Second Amendment issues, but the NRA also provides training to its members, law enforcement and military personnel, works with states, counties and private organizations to build ranges and runs competitive events such as those at Camp Perry in Ohio. Since Camp Perry is a military base, public monies go into range development and federal funds go to training military and police personnel, the NRA would be classed with government contractors and TARP recipients under the DISCLOSE ACT as originally written and effectively prohibited from engaging in any meaningful political activity.
In other words, this act as originally written by anti-gun legislators like New York Senator Chuck Schumer would have silenced the NRA …which would have been the death knell for the Second Amendment.
NRA has one major mission … to defend the right of its members and all Americans to keep & bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Therefore, the NRA served notice on Congress that since the act threatened our very existence, we were prepared to do anything and everything that might be required to defeat it unless it was changed so that we could continue to represent the views of our members in the public arena. The letter, sent on May 26, was public. The NRA did not engage in back room shenanigans, but told Congressional leaders quite clearly that we would do whatever we needed to do to protect the rights of our members and our ability to defend the Second Amendment.
Last week Democratic leadership in the House capitulated by agreeing to exempt the NRA from the act – not in return for NRA support, but to avoid a political war that might cost them even more seats this fall.
I have to tell you that I never thought the Democrats would agree to this – not because they have much regard for constitutional rights – because I didn’t believe their left wing would allow it. The events since their capitulation convince me that their fear of NRA retaliation forced them to take steps that split their coalition and could easily doom the whole bill.
Consider this: on Thursday night, California Senator Diane Feinstein, one of the most anti-Second Amendment members of the Senate, announced that she wouldn’t support the DISCLOSE ACT if it exempted the NRA. By Friday some two-dozen left wing activist groups that had previously been pressing Congress to pass the bill announced that now they wanted it defeated.
The bottom line is that in refusing to risk its members’ rights and the very survival of the Second Amendment, the NRA has also made it less rather than more likely that support for this terrible legislation will collapse and the free speech rights of every one of us will benefit.
David A. Keene, NRA 1st Vice President
________________________________
From: memoo6@comcast.net [mailto:memoo6@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:17 PM
To: Keene, David
Subject: SAY NO TO DISCLOSE BILL!
The NRA needs to OPPOSE this Disclose bill. Even if you are exempt, it is grossly unfair to many other American groups. Remember how many members the AARP lost when they supported Obamacare? The same could happen to NRA membership.
NRA has always been such a respected voice for the people. Please do not fall into the DC back room deal crowd. You will lose much creditability with many Americans.
Please change your stance and stand for all of us as you always have. I firmly believe this bill is aimed directly at Tea Party groups through out this country. PLEASE do not be a party to the dismantling of Americans who are trying desperately trying to protect this country.
Thank you
Mary Martin
If I were Clark or Hurt I would make a point about how unemployment had risen in the 5th district even after Perriello voted for the stimulus package that didn’t do anything to help the 5th district.
and what about this banking regulation bill set to be voted on this week? While not sharp enough to understand all that it purports to do, I do know that the law will create another layer of regulation AND bureaucracy. And how will the govt. try to pay for these extra offices & jobs? by assessing banks!.
this will ultimately hurt shareholders, credit card holders & will eventually trickle down to hurt Main Street business.
how will Perriello vote on this expansion of government?
Perriello supporters claim he is the hardest working congressman which would be great if he was working hard for the people of the 5th district but the fact is he is working hard for Pelosi and Obama.