Fredreka Schouten reports in House approves Koch-backed bill to shield donors’ names the US House of Representatives, has passed a measure to conceal the purchase of government officials.
From the post:
The House approved a bill Tuesday that would bar the IRS from collecting the names of donors to tax-exempt groups, prompting warnings from campaign-finance watchdogs that it could lead to foreign interests illegally infiltrating American elections.
The measure, which has the support of House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., also pits the Obama administration against one of the most powerful figures in Republican politics, billionaire industrialist Charles Koch. Koch’s donor network channels hundreds of millions of dollars each year into groups that largely use anonymous donations to shape policies on everything from health care to tax subsidies. Its leaders have urged the Republican-controlled Congress to clamp down on the IRS, citing free-speech concerns.
The names of donors to politically active non-profit groups aren’t public information now, but the organizations still have to disclose donor information to the IRS on annual tax returns. The bill, written by Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., would prohibit the tax agency from collecting names, addresses or any “identifying information” about donors.
…
Truth be told, however, “the House” didn’t vote in favor of H.R.5053 – Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act.
Rather, two-hundred and forty (240) identified representatives voted in favor of H.R.5053.
Two-hundred and forty representatives purchased by campaign contributions who now wish to keep their contributors secret.
Two-hundred and forty representatives who are as likely as not, guilty of criminal, financial/sexual or other forms of misconduct, that could result in their replacement.
Two-hundred and forty representatives who continue in office only so long as they are not exposed to law enforcement and the public.
Where are you going to invest your time and resources?
Showing solidarity on issues where substantive change isn’t going to happen, or taking back your government from its current purchasers?
PS: In case you think “substantive change” is possible on gun control, consider the unlikely scenario that “assault weapons” are banned from sale. So what? The ones in circulation number in the millions. Net effect of your “victory” would be exactly zero.