Going on eight months now the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, requiring senators to file their campaign finance reports electronically, has been held up by proceedural maneuvers from the Republican side. After a series of secret holds placed on the bill were thwarted once secret holds were banned (Senators with secret holds must reveal their identity after 72 hours) Sen. John Ensign blocked the bill by offering a poison pill amendment that lacked relevance to the bill. Ensign’s amendment, revealed on this blog to have originated from the offices of Mitch McConnell, requires outside organizations filing ethics complaints to reveal their donor list. For months now, this irrelevant, poison pill amendment has blocked a simple change in how Senators file their campaign finance reports that would help make the data more readily accessible to the voting public. Now a coalition of groups, including a number of conservative groups, has formed to ask Ensign to drop his amendment and allow the electronic filing bill to pass. The groups include:

Alliance for Justice
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
The American Conservative Union
James Bopp Jr., General Counsel James Madison Center for Free Speech
Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest
The Free Speech Coalition
Gun Owners of America,
National Center for Public Policy Research
OMB Watch

The full letter is after the jump.

November 9, 2007

The Honorable Harry Reid
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
361-A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Re: Drop Retaliatory Ensign Amendment to S. 223

Dear Senators Reid and McConnell,

We are writing as nonprofit organizations to ask you to defeat an amendment proposed by Senator John Ensign of Nevada to S. 223, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. It would require any charity, religious organization or civic group that files an ethics complaint against a Senator or a Senate campaign to disclose donors that give more than $5,000.

This proposal is a clear attempt to intimidate the public from seeking enforcement of Senate ethics rules. Its unmistakable purpose is to discourage organizations from taking action to keep government accountable. Its retaliatory nature is counter to donors’ privacy rights and the First Amendment rights of association and speech, and raises significant constitutional questions.

This proposal contravenes and runs counter to the letter and spirit of well-established tax law policies, rules and regulations protecting the identity of donors that were enacted in recognition of the Supreme Court’s decision in NAACP v. Alabama. If adopted, this provision would have the effect of changing existing tax law without the benefit of a full and open public debate, including involvement of Congressional tax-writing committees, and without a change in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Current law provides adequate information about any organization filing an ethics complaint. Any Senator can learn more about the organization by requesting disclosure of their IRS Form 990, which does not publicly identify donors, but does provide information on key leadership, finances and activities.

Civic participation in the United States most often occurs through nonprofit organizations. Individuals who want to influence public policy or hold government accountable know they can be more effective by joining and supporting such organizations. They do so with an expectation of privacy that was recognized by the Supreme Court.

We urge you to oppose the Ensign amendment.

Yours truly,

Alliance for Justice
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
The American Conservative Union
James Bopp Jr., General Counsel James Madison Center for Free Speech
Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest
The Free Speech Coalition
Gun Owners of America,
National Center for Public Policy Research
OMB Watch

The following private companies also concur with this letter:
Eberle Communications Group, Inc.
Harbinger Communications Co., Inc.

cc: Sen. Max Baucus, Sen. Robert Bennett, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Sen. Thad Cochran,
Sen. John Cornyn, Sen. John Ensign, Sen. Russell Feingold, Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
Sen. Charles Grassley, Sen. John McCain

0 Comments

Sen. John Ensign continues to transparently block the electronic filing bill by refusing to back down from a ridiculous amendment requiring outside groups filing ethics complaints to reveal their funding sources. In stating his refusal to yield Ensign also admitted that he is working with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the author of this absurd amendment, to block passage of the electronic filing bill. The Hill reports, "Ensign added that he consulted with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) before deciding on his strategy, deeming the push for the amendment ‘something we did together … we discussed it. I felt it was a good idea for me to do it.’" (Emphasis added.) McConnell has stated previously, including in the last few days, that he supports the electronic filing bill. It appears that he is being far less than honest.

Ensign and McConnell should do the senatorial thing and step out of the way as Sen. Bob Bennett did when he tried to offer a poison pill amendment. Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein has offered Ensign a fair hearing in her committee on his amendment in exchange for dropping his objection to electronic filing. It’s time for Ensign and McConnell to stop blocking transparency legislation.

In regards to the Ensign/McConnell amendment itself there are serious legal questions that appear to make it and illegal attempt to infringe on certain groups’ privacy. Adam Bonin summarized the legal issues yesterday in a post at Daily Kos:

What can we say about this proposal? Of course it’s not germane to this innocuous, bipartisan legislation, but what’s more is that it’s pretty blatantly unconstitutional. In a series of cases from the civil rights era including NAACP v Alabama and Bates v. City of Little Rock, the Supreme Court has made clear that such compelled disclosure – or "outing" – of supporters of a political organization is anathema to democracy, as it subjects members to potential harassment or retaliation and infringes on their constitutional rights of association, and must be supported by a compelling state interest.

Tell Ensign and McConnell to stop blocking transparency.

Sen. John Ensign: (202) 224-6244

Sen. Mitch McConnell: (202) 224-2541

0 Comments

On Monday, S. 223, the Senate electronic filing bill was blocked for a third time, this time by Sen. John Ensign who offered an amendment that would require outside organizations filing ethics complaints to disclose their funding sources. This non-germane amendment did not originate from Ensign’s offices.

Sunlight has learned that last week Democratic offices were given a Unanimous Consent agreement that would have allowed the Senate to move to S. 223 only if they agreed to take up a an amendment identical to the one introduced on Monday by Senator John Ensign. The consent agreement came from none other than the offices of Sen. Mitch McConnell, whom the Sunlight Foundation has targeted as a culprit in covering up the identity of the anonymous Senators previously blocking the bill. That the “McConnell amendment” is now being offered by Senator Ensign comes as no surprise to long time McConnell watchers, who are well aware that when it comes to reform, McConnell is often hiding behind the scenes, pulling all the strings. .

The document shows that the effort to block S. 223 originates not from the offices of Sen. Ensign but from the Minority Leader’s office. So, McConnell wasn’t hiding the identity of a fellow senator, he was hiding himself!

0 Comments

Who knew a little bill requiring senators to file their campaign finance reports electronically could cause such a problem on Capitol Hill? Today, Senate Republicans under the stewardship of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tried their hand at a parliamentary trick to add poison pill amendments to S. 223. When Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to move S. 1, the Senate' lobbying reform package, to conference committee Sen. Bob Bennett attempted to add S. 223 while reserving the right to add another amendment. Bennett likely wanted to slip in the same amendment that he tried to add to S.223 when it was in committee. That amendment would allow party committees, like the RNC or the DSCC, to coordinate campaign activities with candidate committees. Bennett's amendment is widely opposed by the majority Democrats and would not only make S. 223's passage impossible in conference or in the House of Representatives, but would endanger the entire lobbying and ethics reform package. Reid scuttled this parliamentary trickery by objecting to Bennett's proposition. The Senate went into convulsions and recessed without advancing S. 1 to conference committee. (There are some conflicting accounts of exactly how this proceeded.))

Since the Senate minority is upping the ante with procedural tricks, the Sunlight Foundation has decided to up the ante on Mitch McConnell. Today, Sunlight announced the extension of the deadline for our campaign to get Mitch McConnell on the record responding to questions about the continued blocking of S. 223. Not only is the deadline extended but the prize money is doubled. You will now receive $1,000 if you are the first to submit a video of McConnell responding to questions about the bill. Check out What's McConnell Hiding? for more details.

0 Comments

  Today, the Sunlight Foundation launched a new campaign to reveal which senator is blocking passage of the Senate Campaign Disparity Act (S. 223). If you’ve been following this story here you know that twice this bill - which would require senators to file their campaign finance reports electronically - has been blocked by an anonymous Republican senator who is being hidden by Sen. Mitch McConnell. In his home state of Kentucky we are launching a billboard and a Web site to force McConnell to reveal the name of the anonymous senator. The Louisville Courier-Journal and the Politico have already picked up the story. Check out What’s McConnell Hiding? for more details or continue reading below the fold. We have a number of ways for you to get involved.

What’s McConnell Hiding? is a site based on action. You can call Mitch McConnell and ask him to release the names, you can write to an editorial board in Kentucky, you can take our poll to indicate your position on what McConnell should do, or you can participate in our contest. Our poll is equipped as a poll widget, which we encourage you to put on your blog, if you have one, so that your readers can vote in the poll as well.

So, you’ve heard about the poll and now you’re wondering about this contest. The first person to send us a video of McConnell responding to questions about who is blocking S. 223 will receive $500. That’s $500 if you can get McConnell on record responding to questions or refusing to respond about which senators are blocking S. 223. So break out those cameras and start recording.

This campaign is important to end the notion that our elected representatives can hide while they prevent no-brainer legislation from passing. It’s time to let Mitch McConnell know that this practice has got to stop now! No more secret government, no more delayed campaign finance information, and no more anonymous senators.

Let’s make Mitch McConnell reveal what he’s hiding! Go to whatsmitchmcconnellhiding.com and join the campaign to free S. 223 and begin to end secret government practices. We don’t need to wait to do it. We can do it now.

0 Comments

On Monday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to help her pass S.223, the Senate campaign finance electronic filing bill. McConnell has been abetting a Republican objection to the bill by refusing to reveal information about who in his party does not approve of this no-brainer legislation. While McConnell states that Republican Senators want to offer amendments to the bill he also refuses to identify and describe these amendments. Feinstein is committed to passing this bill and McConnell has said that he supports it. McConnell must meet with Sen. Feinstein to work together to pass this bill without poison pill amendments. Feinstein’s letter asks for McConnell to identify to her the amendments that Republican Senators wish to offer. If they have the kind of support that S.223 has than they could be added. If they are controversial, they should go through the regular committee process. This is very simple and fair. Read the letter:

The Honorable Mitch McConnell

The Republican Leader

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mitch:

I write to ask for your assistance in getting S. 223, the “Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act,” adopted by the Senate. I am willing and eager to work with you and our Senate colleagues to get this legislation passed.

As the Republican Leader and also a member of the Rules Committee, you are well aware of hurdles Senators Feingold and I have faced in having this bill brought up for consideration and passed on the Senate Floor.

To date, the Member or Members on your side who objected to taking up and adopting the bill have not come forward to say why the bill is being held up.

This is a simple, straight-forward bill that brings transparency to campaign report filing procedures. There is no public opposition. Most important, S. 223 has broad bipartisan support — currently, 38 of our colleagues have signed on as cosponsors, including 15 Republicans.

Your press spokesman has suggested that the bill was held up because some members of your party may wish to offer amendments. I am ready to meet with those Senators to discuss their amendments and try to address their concerns.

If they insist on remaining anonymous, I would ask you to identify those amendments yourself.

If those amendments, like this bill, have broad bipartisan support and no one opposes them on the merits, we may be able to reach agreement to have them considered.

If, on the other hand, they are controversial proposals and would threaten the ultimate enactment of this bill, I would ask that you allow the Rules Committee to consider them in the normal course and permit this bill to go through without amendment.

I look forward to working with you and my Senate colleagues to make S. 223 law.

With warm personal regards,

Dianne Feinstein

Chairman

0 Comments

The Winston-Salem Journal stands up for openness while Sen. Mitch McConnell and Republican Senators, including the two North Carolina Senators Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, continue to block S.223 from passing in a clean, amendment-free fashion. McConnell and a few Republican Senators want to amend the bill to prevent its passage. The Winston-Salem Journal write that the objecting Senator, or Senators, should go "public with his or her objections." What McConnell and his cohort need to understand is that objecting to a bill may be a Senate tradition, "But to do so anonymously is cowardly, and to do so while professing not to be the blocker is deceitful." Tell Mitch McConnell - (202) 224-2541 - to release the names of the objectors and to make any and all amendments available to the public now.

0 Comments

Three editorial boards let loose today on Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and the Senate Republican Caucus for blocking the "no-brainer" legislation to require Senator's to electronically file their campaign finance reports. The Lexington Herald-Leader wrote that the Republican block is "but another of those too-clever maneuvers that serve only to undermine public support for Congress." The Baltimore Sun excoriates the entire Senate for failing to pass this simple measure. But the real gem comes in Roll Call's editorial, wherein we learn that, "McConnell told Roll Call that 'a couple of people on my side want to offer an amendment'". If there was ever doubt that this was not an attempt to kill the bill with "poison pill" amendments it ought to have just slithered out of the room. If the Republicans want to have a debate why not make their amendments public and see if they can't reach a deal as Sen. Bennett did when he attempted to attach a controversial amendment to the bill. Call Mitch McConnell - (202) 224-2541 - and let him know you don't appreciate his delaying and blocking techniques. Tell him to release the names of the objecting Senators and to release the details of the amendments he wants to add. Use this comment form to tell us what he says.

0 Comments

Today the Louisville Courier-Journal joins our call for Sen. Mitch McConnell to release the name of the anonymous Senator blocking the passage of S.223. McConnell needs to give the name up and let the bill pass. He has made electronic filing into a partisan issue for no reason except to continue the status quo of wasted tax dollars and hidden campaign contributions. The Courier-Journal calls McConnell out on his dismissal of transparency:

This great defender of dollar-driven politics — Washington's self-identified champion of money as the constitutional equivalent of speech — has always insisted the answer is not less cash in campaigns but more transparency. Trust the voters to figure out who is scratching whose back, he says, by making sure they can find out who is giving what to whom.

What's clear, once again, is that Sen. McConnell says one thing and does another. He makes not only Kentucky but the Senate itself look bad.

You can continue to help find the identity of the anonymous Senator here.

0 Comments

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refuses to let S.223 - a bill to require that Senators file their campaign finance reports electronically - pass by unanimous consent. Callers to his office receive the same response every time they call. The staffs of McConnell and Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), the proxy Senator lodging the objection, say that the identity of the anonymous Senator will be revealed as soon as Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) puts the bill on the schedule. These demands show that, no matter who is objecting to the bill now, McConnell and Bunning will ensure that whenever this bill comes up for unanimous consent some “anonymous” Senator will raise an objection.

We are also hearing the same talking point from other Senate offices. Many other offices that issued denials during last week’s hunt are now bottling up. It looks like McConnell has instituted a Stop Snitchin’ policy in the Republican caucus. We, however, are getting in contact with the editorial boards in each Senator’s state. And you should call your Senators and Mitch McConnell and ask them if they objected to S.223. You can give us your findings on this comment form.

McConnell’s demands, that Reid place the bill on the schedule, are also inaccurate demands to make. The bill is already on the schedule. When it was reported out of committee it was placed on the legislative calendar just like every other bill. What McConnell and Bunning want is for the bill to be scheduled for a floor vote where it will be open to amendments. This is the reason why Feingold and Feinstein have been trying to pass the bill by unanimous consent. Feingold explains this well in his post at Daily Kos,

“Basically, the way to get around an objection to action by unanimous consent is for the Majority Leader to bring up the bill and schedule a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to it. That vote takes place two days after a cloture vote is filed. I have no doubt we would win such a vote handily, maybe even unanimously. But then the bill would be subject to amendment and there are many controversial and contentious campaign finance amendments, or even amendments on other topics that might be offered. And the only way to limit those amendments would be to schedule another cloture vote to limit debate. So the process could take several days under the best of circumstances.

All of that could be done, but there are many other worthy bills competing for floor time. This bill is not controversial. No one has given a single reason to oppose it, or even debate it.”

Do McConnell and Bunning want to add amendments to this incredibly non-controversial legislation? There are many bills that have passed by unanimous consent in the Senate that have a lot more meat to them than this bill. Here are some of them:

H.R.475 : To revise the composition of the House of Representatives Page Board to equalize the number of members representing the majority and minority parties and to include a member representing the parents of pages and a member representing former pages, and for other purposes.

H.R.1130 : To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to extend the authority to withhold from public availability a financial disclosure report filed by an individual who is a judicial officer or judicial employee, to the extent necessary to protect the safety of that individual or a family member of that individual, and for other purposes.

H.R.1681 : To amend the Congressional Charter of The American National Red Cross to modernize its governance structure, to enhance the ability of the board of governors of The American National Red Cross to support the critical mission of The American National Red Cross in the 21st century, and for other purposes.

S.1002 : A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to reinstate certain provisions relating to the nutrition services incentive program.

S.888 : A bill to amend section 1091 of title 18, United States Code, to allow the prosecution of genocide in appropriate circumstances.

None of these bills had the number of co-sponsors that S.223 has. McConnell complains that Senators need time to review the bill. Did they need to review a bill about the prosecution of genocide or a bill restructuring the Red Cross? Clearly not. All of McConnell’s justifications and excuses come up empty. He clearly wants this bill to come to floor so that it can be weighed down by amendments. McConnell says that the only way he will release the name is if Reid allows McConnell’s party to weigh the bill down with amendments. This threat indicates that McConnell is the one who wants the bill to be blocked. Let your Senators and Mitch McConnell that you don’t appreciate them stonewalling their constituents. Call them and ask if they objected to S.223.

0 Comments