Disclose Act Needs Disclosure

Anytime Chuck Schumer proposes anything, suspicious minds are justified. The Disclosure Act, a Schumer and Chris Van Hollen brainchild, is another attempt to tip the scales of influence rather than correct them.

Like all legislation these days, the Disclose Act is a bill clouded with legalese and shrouded with mystery. Then again, legislation rarely is intended to be understood by mainstream America. That the Health care bill was 2100 pages of gobble dee gook was not entirely accidental. Ditto with the Disclosure Act. What Americans really need is disclosure about the Disclosure Act. Unfortunately you won’t get it from the proponents.

As is hardly a secret, Democrats are losing voters like a lacerated artery and they want to staunch the bleeding as the mid term elections near. Rather than change to honest and constitutionally mandated principles, they believe that right now would be time to limit business donors who are more prone to support Republicans. They’ve crafted a bill to inhibit Republican leaning election supporters under the guise of a Wall Street clean up.

In truth this legislation may not stand up to a constitutional challenge but that’s not the main concern of the drafters. The idea is to get it through in time for this election as a lot of incumbent Democrats are in trouble. They say the legislation is needed to control greedy businesses whose dubious methods hurt the economy. There is some truth to this. The sector they’re targeting however are those worried the Democrat congress is over taxing, over reaching, and over regulating. In other words, those that may support a Republican return to power. They’ve exempted many of the champions of wasteful spending who engage in government programs and financially support Democrats. Fannie and Freddie for example, spiraling out of control with wasteful spending and questionable ethics are exempt.

Beyond exempting Fannie and Freddie the bill would also exempt unions and those organizations enjoying collective bargaining agreements with the government. These are the special interests that pour billions into Democratic coffers. Why they are receiving an exemption to the regulation is obvious. Why they should however is inexplicable. The true purpose of the legislation is not to clean up anything, but to tilt the scales for this election.

My opposition to the Disclose Act is not so much the “free speech” argument that most Republicans echo. I believe the bill would be valid if it went further. In other words, if they stop exempting their favorite interest groups, on both sides of the aisle, I support campaign finance reform. It’s when you start making exceptions so that you can bypass the actual purpose of the legislation that I part company.

I support free speech, but not when that right is exclusively used as money dedicated to buying congressional and presidential influence. With a lobbying industry expected to spend over 3.7 billion dollars for this midterm and 5.5 billion when the oval office is in play, it’s obvious that objectivity is being purchased. Almost every reform bill crafted for the past 20 years has some special interest strings attached to it, either in terms of preferential treatment, or in government contracts being handed out. That’s why this nation is over 14 trillion in debt and Congress pretends that it’s wise, prudent, and necessary spending.

For the same reason you cannot yell “ fire” in a crowded theater, you ought not be able to purchase a party or a candidate by stuffing their pockets with money and freebies. The truth is, we’re beyond mere influence. Pay to play has stymied objective and constitutional government practically out of existence. Nor should a congressman’s job be primarily consumed almost twelve months a year with quota’s of campaign money to raise for their party leaders. That’s exactly how government now works. Everybody knows it even though politicians don’t admit it.

The Disclose Act is in fact a bad bill because it’s meant to corrupt the system further rather than correct it. It’s the same problem with virtually every reform bill that Congress generates.

Do I oppose the Disclose Act because it goes too far? No. I oppose it because it doesn’t go far enough.