When I saw the headline on the Minnesota Birkeydependent – “Backers of gay marriage ban seek to prevent disclosure about campaign spending, donors” is how it reads – my spidey-sense just knew it would be in there.
What, you ask?
That little thing that’s there whenever any talk of campaign finance disclosure – by Republicans – comes up.
Stay with me, here. Birkey writes:
The groups behind a ballot measure that would put a ban on same-sex marriage in the Minnesota Constitution urged the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board on Tuesday to retain a rule that would allow corporations to make unlimited contributions in support of the ballot measure. The Minnesota Family Council (MFC) testified that it shouldn’t have to disclose any of its donors in the campaign to pass the amendment, while Minnesota for Marriage, of which MFC and the National Organization for Marriage are a part, brought in attorneys from the Citizens United Supreme Court case to argue that political spending by corporations on the amendment push should be shielded from disclosure laws.
Now as you know, I favor scrapping all restrictions on domestic campaign contributions – but requiring all campaigns and parties to immediately, as in “within one hour of receiving the donation, and before cashing the checks”, disclosing all donations on the internet, and keeping those donations available for years.
But that’s not really the point of this post.
No, it’s this. Indeed, I skipped over most of Birkey’s piece, until I found what I knew I’d find, immediately, upon reading the headline:
But the majority of the testifiers supported the board in changing its opinion on corporate disclosure.
Mike Dean of Common Cause Minnesota said, “Minnesota has a long history of supporting disclosure.”
He said it helps the board gather and detect violations and cited a complaint his group filed against the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council over ads the groups ran in 2010 that they did not report.
“Having this knowledge allows the public to make informed decisions,” he said. “The public has a right to know who is making this political speech. Without the knowledge about who is making political speech, the public can’t evaluate the information or misinformation.”
Fascinating assertion, coming from Mike Dean…
…who leads “Common Cause of Minnesota”, which agitates for transparancy (on the part of non-“progressive” organizations)…
…and whose organization shows $600,000 donations last year, every penny of them anonymous.
If it wasn’t for double standards…..
“The public has a right to know who is making this political speech. Without the knowledge about who is making political speech, the public can’t evaluate the information or misinformation.”
Interesting that the public should have such a right, but not the right to require proper identification at the polling booth. KERMIT NAILS IT!!
Geez, Mitch, I can’t believe you’re upset about this.
Sexting is merely the modern technological equivalent of sending Polaroids of your privates to women you barely know, and who among us hasn’t sent dozens of those? Or opening your trench coat for women in the park to admire . . . who hasn’t spent a few pleasant June Saturdays engaged in that popular and harmless pass-time?
Aside from me, of course. And everybody I know. But we’re all conservatives, not a single Progressive politician in my Address Book.
Other than us, I’m sure it’s perfectly ordinary and normal behavior, nothing to be ashamed of and certainly no reason to resign.
Get over it. Move On.
.
The real reason they want the info is so they can target individuals and groups for discrimination based on the political causes that they support. We saw this in California regarding Prop.8.
And in the failed boycott of Target in Minnesota.
I wonder if anyone has shared with that dimwit Dean that if disclosure is required that he will need to disclose, too. Obviously, he’s too f*$&ing stupid to figure it out on his own.
Lefties are hypocrites???
I am shocked – shocked, I tell you – to hear such a thing
Shame on Common Cause – they should provide names.
Shame on Republicans for calling for the resignation of Weiner, but not Vitter, and instead throwing a big fund raiser for him last week. For those of you who like to claim hypocrisy, Vitter’s sex scandal – the one that followed his predecessors sex scandal – involved the fetish of wearing diapers while frequenting prostitutes, which was the candidate your side chose to support. I wonder how many of these THREE fund raisers by your side will provide the identity all the donors for diaper-boy?
Below are the three latest fundraising events for David Vitter.
When: June 08, 2011
What: Dinner
Where: Rupli Townhouse
Host(s): Tim Rupli, Doyle Bartlett, Camden Fine
Beneficiaries: David Vitter
Contributions: $5,000 PAC; $2,500 Individual
Make Checks Payable To: David Vitter for Senate
When: May 25, 2011
What: Dinner
Where: Bobby Van’s Grill
Beneficiaries: David Vitter
Contributions: $1,000 PAC/Individual
Make Checks Payable To: David Vitter for Senate
When: May 05, 2011
What: 137th Kentucky Derby
Where: Louisville, KY
Beneficiaries: Louisiana Reform PAC
Contributions: $5,000 per couple
I absolutely agree that all parties should have to show their donors; they should also have the same limits on PACs and corporations that we do on individuals – let’s stop allowing big money on either side to ‘buy’ elections.
But the hypocrisy headline over sexting? Your side has been hypocritical enough about that, it was a poor choice for this.
If you look at anonymous donations – there has been far more on the right than on the left in the past election cycle post Citizens United…in which there appears to be some scandal regarding the money made by conservative Justice Thomas and his wife…and their lack of transparency in filing requisite forms.
The only reason that anyone could come to your lame ass conclusion, DG is because there were a lot of shadow donations from the left! For instance puke wads like Tim Gill, a radical, gay, hypocritical software tycoon in CO, contributes to libturds and their related lame assed causes, via thousands of his fellow gay activists to sidestep contribution limits. I believe that he is even a donor to AB4M. It’s interesting that radical gays like Gill, think that everyone that is GLBT are libturds and share his twisted, hypocritical values. This is a fatal error in their plans, because when they approach the sane people among them their nefarious plans are exposed.
DG,
Remember that Congressman who, a couple months ago who texted a pic of his shirtless self? In 2011? He was a republican. He resigned.
Try to keep your precedents precedential.
And now back to ignoring you.
Fantastic. Dog Gone pulls the old “your side does it too” defense of the Conscience, er, make that the C*** & B**** of the Congress, Anthony “Oh a Jewish Girl Who Sucks C***” Weiner. Well let me say, I call for the resignation of David Vitter. Done.
Did you ever consider the possibility that perhaps Weiner should resign because it’s the right thing to do? That maybe a scandal so public (in contrast to the Vitter scandal which was revealed due to the bounty Larry Flynt put up), where pictures and text have been so widely distributed might make it difficult for anyone to take seriously any pronouncement made not only by Weiner but by the entire House? That Weiners direction to Ginger Lee on how to lie to investigators about her involvement with him, might be considered part of an illegal cover-up?
Of course your slander of Vitter for the benefit of Weiner – the diaper allegation seems to only show up at the crackpot websites you seem to get your news from: ThinkProgress, Alternet and Democratic Underground; is par for the course of you and your writing mate Penigma. I thought maybe, for once, there was a somewhat responsible source for your nonsense as NPR had a story mentioning the diaper fetish, but even there, the article (a blog posting) was written by someone who full times at The Nation and who used the word allegedly because the info on the diaper fetish came from an unnamed ‘street source’ – but hey if it gets Weiner’s c*** off the front page, whatever, eh DogGone?
Of course, Vitter has been re-elected since the scandal broke. Based on recent elections, lawsuits, court rulings and subsequent appeals, it appears Progressive types like you don’t care too much for the will of the people.
PS: Nice unrelated shot at Clarence Thomas’ wife Ginni. I know that uppity negro and his uppity ‘wrong kind of white’ wife have been getting under the lilly white skin of Progressive’s for a while.
Weiner is stepping down. Little clue for the Clueless One: It’s about the lies, not the acts.
Dog Gone Says: “Shame on Republicans for calling for the resignation of Weiner”
Yea right DG: “Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) will resign from his seat in Congress, heeding calls from President Barack Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and dozens of other congressional Democrats….”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57116.html
Go lay by your dish!!
“Shame on Republicans for calling for the resignation of Weiner”
Yeah, that crazy wingnut Nancy Pelosi has struck again!
Bet the Koch Brothers paid for her to do that!
In fact, I bet you can find an article on ThinkProgress that confirms it!
Dog Gone Dumass, why do you support and defend the lies of Rep. Weiner?
I think Dog Gone would become a conservative if she realized that all pol’s are glorified car salesmen (yes, this includes Reagan), and their neuroses cannot be separated from their politics.
We are all mad here. When I hear a politician talking earnestly about what he or she wants the country to become I hear a sales talk from an honest, true-believing Oak Island treasure hunter.
“We are all mad here.”
I knew it was something!