Senate Democrats blast GOP for voting against transparency, begin ‘midnight vigil’

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

Senate Democrats on Monday blasted their Republican colleagues for voting against the DISCLOSE Act and plan to give speeches late into the night during a “midnight vigil.”

“Democrats sought to require large political donors to disclose their identities so voters could judge their motivations for themselves,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. “This wasn’t a new concept. In fact, many Republicans who blocked this bill today once supported it. But today those same Republicans chose to side with powerful, anonymous donors, who like their nominee Mitt Romney appear to believe they get to play by their own set of rules.”

“Judging by Republicans’ vote today and Governor Romney’s refusal to release more tax returns, Republicans have clearly decided that secrecy is more important to them than being straight with the American people,” he added.

The DISCLOSE Act would prevent outside campaign groups from hiding their donors. The bill would require organizations that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to file a report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours and identify any donors who gave $10,000 or more.

It would also require the head of any organization that puts out a political ad on TV or radio to publicly state that he or she approves the message, similar to what candidates must do now.

The legislation would prevent partisan “social welfare” organizations like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS from being able to hide wealthy donors. The IRS requires that nonprofit “social welfare” organizations “operate primarily to further the common good.” The organizations are prohibited from running ads in support of or opposition to candidates for public office. But groups like Crossroads GPS have attempted to circumvent the ban on partisan activities by attacking Democratic candidates in ads without explicitly urging people to vote against them.

The DISCLOSE Act was killed in a 51 to 44 party-line vote on a procedural motion. The bill needed at least 60 votes to move forward.

Republicans said the legislation was an attempt to intimidate wealthy donors and an attack on free speech rights.

“As a result of this legislation, advocacy groups ranging from the NAACP to the Sierra Club to the Chamber of Commerce — all of whom already disclose their donors to the IRS — would now be forced to subject their members to public intimidation and harassment,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said.

Democrats hope to force a second vote on the bill on Tuesday.

“We recognize that you don’t win every fight in round one, and this is a fight worth continuing,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the lead sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act.

“Putting an end to secret election spending by special interests is an essential step in protecting middle class priorities. For that reason, we are committed to continuing the debate on the DISCLOSE Act late into the night and asking for a second vote tomorrow if need be. We can’t let the special interests off the hook after just one round.”

United, Senate Dems defeat health care repeal measure

By Carrie Dann

Senate Democrats remained united on Wednesday in killing a Republican effort to repeal the health care bill signed into law last March.

As expected, no Democrats voted against a procedural motion that effectively defeated a GOP amendment -- sponsored by Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and tacked on to an unrelated aviation bill -- to repeal the health legislation.

All Republicans voted together in favor of the McConnell-sponsored amendment. The vote was 47-51.

The House passed the repeal measure last month.

But the defeat of the equivalent legislation in the Senate means that the ultimate fate of the health care bill will likely not be settled until the Supreme Court hears an expected constitutional challenge to the law -- particularly its mandate that most Americans buy insurance.

The high court would likely hear the case in its next term, which begins in October of 2011, although some would like to see the matter addressed sooner. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., urged the court today to expedite the ruling.

"The vote to repeal health care is largely symbolic, because the Supreme Court is going to have to be the one to decide this matter,” Nelson said in a statement. “We ought to do the right thing and ask the High Court to rule quickly so we don’t keep arguing over this for the next several years.”

Senate Dems unanimous: Time for filibuster reform

By Daniel Tencer

All Senate Democrats returning to Congress next year have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking him to take up filibuster reform first thing in the new year.

It's a sign that the Republicans' use of the filibuster at historically high rates to block Democratic legislation may have backfired, and coalesced the political capital needed to change Senate rules.

The letter, delivered this week, "expresses general frustration with what Democrats consider unprecedented obstruction and asks Reid to take steps to end those abuses," the National Journal reports.

Among the chief revisions that Democrats say will likely be offered: Senators could not initiate a filibuster of a bill before it reaches the floor unless they first muster 40 votes for it, and they would have to remain on the floor to sustain it. That is a change from current rules, which require the majority leader to file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed, and then wait 30 hours for a vote on it.

"There have been more filibusters since 2006 than the total between 1920 and 1980," Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) says.

Udall has proposed a plan that would allow Democrats, who will hold 51 seats in the new Senate, to change the rules using a simple majority. Currently, Senate rules require that a change to the rules, such as a change to filibusters, be agreed to by an even larger super-majority -- 67 votes -- than the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

But Udall says this is unconstitutional, because the Constitution allows each new Senate to change its own rules. Udall's "Constitutional Option" would see rule changes made with 51 votes -- just enough for the Senate to change filibuster rules, if Democratic senators' unanimity on the issue holds. (An 1892 Supreme Court ruling agrees with Udall's argument.)

Changing filibuster rules is not without historical precedent. In 1917, the bar for a filibuster was set at 67 votes, and in 1975 it was reduced to 60.

Another proposal, put forward by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), would see the threshold for a filibuster fall as the filibuster goes on.

"On the first cloture attempt, sixty votes would be required. But, over a period of days or weeks, the number of votes required would fall to a simple majority of fifty-one senators," he wrote inThe Nation.

Regardless of the specific shape of the filibuster reform -- which could come before the Senate as early as Jan. 5 -- the very push to change the rules shows that the GOP tactic of heavily using filibusters may have backfired, Ezra Klein argues at the Washington Post.

"They say elections have consequences. So too, it turns out, does obstruction," he writes. If the Democrats don't lose their nerve, the Republican minority will soon "labor under the knowledge that misuse of the rules will mean reform of the rules."

The push to change filibuster rules isn't limited to the halls of Congress. A coalition of progressive organizations has come together to form Fix the Senate Now, a pressure group meant to support the effort to reform Senate rules. Among the organizations backing Fix the Senate Now are the AFL-CIO, the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, SEIU, the Sierra Club and United Steelworkers.

"In the US Senate, there are back room deals, secret holds, and filibuster rules that allow a handful of senators to stop the rest from making any progress. Senators don’t even get to debate about really important legislation on the Senate floor, let alone vote, and no one is held accountable. But the rules can be changed by a majority vote at the start of the next Congress," the group implores.

Conservative observers have accused the group of "astroturfing" the filibuster reform movement.

And as the effort to change the filibuster gains steam, Republican backers -- afraid of a loss of influence in the upper chamber -- have begun to argue that no reform is necessary.

"The bottom line is this: the Senate was never intended to be a democratic body, a reflection of one man, one vote," writes "Vladimir" at the Red State blog. "It is a deliberative body, and a consensus-building body. The filibuster has an important role to play in making that possible."

M.C.L Comment: I wished the Senate Dems thought of this two years ago when Senator Barack Obama became President-elect Barack Obama. It shouldn't been too much of a shock to Democrats that the Republicans in the senate would use every trick in the book to slow up or kill progress for political gains.