In other words the 'well written' bill that is to LEVEL the Political Playing Field in the USA, due to a poor decision in regard to Election Reform by the Robert's Court, didn't take years to write and banter around before it was submitted for a vote.
...The Senate Republicans see things differently. (click title to entry - thank you)"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," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, in a release.
"The DISCLOSE Act seeks to protect unpopular Democrat politicians by silencing their critics and exempting their campaign supporters from an all out attack on the First Amendment," he said.
No Republican Senators voted with the Democrats. The majority party still has several opportunities before the August recess to woo some Republicans to cross the aisle and pass the legislation.
The Senate Republicans AGAIN have turned to obstruction to postpone the passage of the Disclose Act because they are afraid to level the political playing field. The Republicans want their cronies to give to campaigns and to run political ads to benefit the Republicans running for office.
McConnell's Senate Republicans would be believable in their 'belly aching' IF they had submitted a bill that illustrated clearly to balance the finances of any one candidate regardless of party.
McConnell's Senate Republicans would be believable if their 'belly aching' wasn't whining so much as taking action to stop the corruption in elections by demanding the spending of candidates on both side of the aisle were equal by MUTUAL CONSENT.
In other words, passing the Disclose Act is irrelevant to a 2010 election ballot in any State IF the candidates were voluntarily seeking to limit their spending as a willingness to their electorate showing they want Election Reform, EQUITABLE FAIRNESS in elections.
See, McConnell's Senate Republicans are saying the Disclose Act makes the 'elections of 2010' LEAN in favor of the Democrats. They never really stated in what manner that was so, but, the TRUTH is if Republicans recognize the 'UNFAIR' advantage that crony spending brings to elections for a candidate with a well endowed large campaign treasury and/or many 'special interests' spending large amounts to promote a candidate; they would not hesitate to be the 'valient' and bring 'equity' voluntarily.
Then there is the BEST solution which would remove big contributors with limited financing that provies 'matching' funds. See, this bill would work without the use of 'public monies.' If this bill would allow 'matching funds' from commercial interests to the extent the public electorate contributed, it would work.
But, hey, who in the world would believe the Republicans actually wants 'fair elections.' After all where would the Plutocarcy be?
The Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826) was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and in the House of Representatives by Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Walter Jones, Jr. (R-N.C.). The bill would allow federal candidates to choose to run for office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists, and would be freed from the constant fundraising in order to focus on what people in their communities want.
Participating candidates seek support from their communities, not Washington, D.C.
Candidates would raise a large number of small contributions from their communities in order to qualify for Fair Elections funding. Contributions are limited to $100.
To qualify, a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives would have to collect 1,500 contributions from people in their state and raise a total of $50,000....
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/more/summary
