Snark: to annoy or irritate

"Snark" has been in English language dictionaries since at least 1906, and Lewis Carroll used the word to describe a mythological animal in his poem, The Hunting of the Snark (1874). Most recently, the word has come to characterize snappish, sarcastic, or mean-spirited comments or actions directed at those who annoy or irritate us.

At first, this blog was just going be a place to gripe, but because it's more satisfying to take action than it is to merely complain, now most of the posts/reposts suggest ways to get involved in solving problems.

Friday, July 13, 2012

End Secret Election Spending

Become a citizen co-sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 to end secret election spending.The U.S. Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United v. FEC ruling has unleashed a torrent of anonymous campaign spending into our political system.

Progressive champion Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is fighting back by pushing Congress to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which is coming up for a vote.
But he needs your help.
As Sen. Whitehouse has said, "We need a groundswell of support to show Congress that the American people want an end to the secret election spending that is threatening our democracy."
To be clear, what we really need is to get all corporate money out of politics, to roll back Citizens United, end corporate personhood and institute public financing of elections. And we are working hard toward those long term goals.
But we must move the ball forward in the interim.
The Supreme Court is highly unlikely to undo Citizens United anytime soon. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently doubled-down on Citizens United by overturning Montana's 100-year-old ban on corporate spending of elections. And passing a constitutional amendment to overturnCitizens United, while one of our highest priorities, will take years to achieve.
In the meantime, the DISCLOSE Act would force most groups spending money on elections to reveal the corporations, individuals and entities who fund them.
As the Washington trade publication The Hill explains:
The new version of the Disclose Act would require any group that spends $10,000 or more on election ads, or any other political activity, to file a disclosure report with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) within 24 hours. Groups would also have to file a new report for each additional $10,000 spent, disclose donors who gave $10,000 or more and provide a statement from the group's head ratifying that there was no coordination with any campaign, which is illegal.1
While it won't end unlimited corporate election spending, the DISCLOSE Act at least brings this spending out of the shadows — where we can expose it, and fight back.
The DISCLOSE Act is the first step to restoring the voice of everyday citizens in our elections, and restoring a small measure of sanity to a system of campaign finance that has become completely insane.
And even taking this first step will require a massive outcry by the American public to make sure Congress does not sweep this issue under the rug.
Become a citizen co-sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 to end secret election spending. Click the link below to add your name, and Sen. Whitehouse will bring your signature to the Senate floor when he fights to pass this bill.
Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
1. Senate Dems push 'Disclose Act 2.0'The Hill, March 21, 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.