The Glade 4.0

(a) General Findings- Congress finds and declares as follows:

(1) Throughout the history of the United States, the American people have been rightly concerned about the power of special interests to control our democratic processes. That was true over 100 years ago when Congress first enacted legislation intended to restrict corporate funds from being used in Federal elections, legislation that Congress in 1947 reaffirmed was intended to include independent expenditures. The Supreme Court held such legislation to be constitutional in 1990 in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (494 U.S. 652) and again in 2003 in McConnell v. F.E.C. (540 U.S. 93).

(2) The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on January 21, 2010, reverses established jurisprudence and sound policy to greatly increase the dangers of undue special interest influence over the democratic process. That decision has opened the floodgates for corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited sums from their general treasury accounts to influence the outcome of elections.

(3) Congress must take action to ensure that the American public has all the information necessary to exercise its free speech and voting rights, and must otherwise take narrowly-tailored steps to regulate independent expenditures and electioneering communications in elections.

(b) Findings Relating to Government Contractors- Congress finds and declares as follows:

(1) Government contracting is an activity that is particularly susceptible to improper influence, and to the appearance of improper influence. Government contracts must be awarded based on an objective evaluation of how well bidders or potential contractors meet relevant statutory criteria.

(2) Independent expenditures and electioneering communications that benefit particular candidates or elected officials or disfavor their opponents can lead to apparent and actual ingratiation, access, influence, and quid pro quo arrangements. Government contracts should be awarded based on an objective application of statutory criteria, not based on other forms of inappropriate or corrupting influence.

(3) Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communications by persons negotiating for or performing government contracts will prevent government officials involved in or with influence over the contracting process from influencing the contracting process based, consciously or otherwise, on this kind of inappropriate or corrupting influence.

(4) Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communications by persons negotiating for or performing government contracts will likewise prevent such persons from feeling pressure, whether actually exerted by government officials or not, to make expenditures and to fund communications in order to maximize their chances of receiving contracts, or to match similar expenditures and communications made by their competitors.

(5) Furthermore, because government contracts often involve large amounts of public money, it is critical that the public perceive that the government contracts are awarded strictly in accordance with prescribed statutory standards, and not based on other forms of inappropriate or corrupting influence. The public’s confidence in government is undermined when corporations that make significant expenditures during Federal election campaigns later receive government funds.

(6) Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communications by persons negotiating for or performing government contracts will prevent any appearance that government contracts were awarded based in whole or in part on such expenditures or communications, or based on the inappropriate or corrupting influence such expenditures and communications can create and appear to create.

(7) In these ways, prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communications by persons negotiating for or performing government contracts will protect the actual and perceived integrity of the government contracting process.

(8) Moreover, the risks of waste, fraud and abuse, all resulting in economic losses to taxpayers, are significant when would-be public contractors or applicants for public funds make expenditures in Federal election campaigns in order to affect electoral outcomes.

“I welcome the introduction of this strong bi-partisan legislation to control the flood of special interest money into America’s elections. Powerful special interests and their lobbyists should not be able to drown out the voices of the American people. Yet they work ceaselessly toward that goal: they claim the protection of the Constitution in extending this power, and they exploit every loophole in the law to escape limits on their activities. The legislation introduced today would establish the toughest-ever disclosure requirements for election-related spending by big oil corporations, Wall Street and other special interests, so the American people can follow the money and see clearly which special interests are funding political campaign activity and trying to buy representation in our government. I have long believed that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this legislation will shine an unprecedented light on corporate spending in political campaigns. This bill will also prohibit foreign entities from manipulating the outcomes of American elections and help close other special interest loopholes. I hope that Congress will give this legislation the swift consideration it deserves, which is especially urgent now in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Passing the legislation is a critical step in restoring our government to its rightful owners: the American people.”

Thoughts?

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Primarily that I hate it when legislators come up with ridiculous-sounding names for laws just so they can use catchy acronyms. The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (D.I.S.C.L.O.S.E.) Act? Seriously?