Khi c\u00e1c Th\u01b0\u1ee3ng ngh\u1ecb s\u0129 chu\u1ea9n b\u1ecb cho cu\u1ed9c tranh lu\u1eadn, B\u1ed1i c\u1ea3nh v\u00e0 hi\u1ec3u bi\u1ebft t\u1eeb M\u1ee5c \u0111\u00edch chung<\/p>
G\u1eedi: c\u00e1c ph\u00f3ng vi\u00ean v\u00e0 c\u00e1c c\u00e2y b\u00fat b\u00ecnh lu\u1eadn:<\/p>
D\u01b0\u1edbi \u0111\u00e2y l\u00e0 b\u1ea3n ghi nh\u1edb v\u1ec1 \u0110\u1ea1o lu\u1eadt DISCLOSE, d\u1ef1 ki\u1ebfn s\u1ebd \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c tranh lu\u1eadn v\u00e0o \u0111\u1ea7u tu\u1ea7n t\u1edbi t\u1ea1i Th\u01b0\u1ee3ng vi\u1ec7n Hoa K\u1ef3. <\/p>
C\u00e1c nh\u00e0 l\u00e3nh \u0111\u1ea1o Th\u01b0\u1ee3ng vi\u1ec7n \u0111\u00e3 d\u00e0nh ri\u00eang ng\u00e0y th\u1ee9 Hai v\u00e0 c\u00f3 th\u1ec3 l\u00e0 th\u1ee9 Ba, ng\u00e0y 16 v\u00e0 17 th\u00e1ng 7, \u0111\u1ec3 tranh lu\u1eadn v\u1ec1 phi\u00ean b\u1ea3n m\u1edbi v\u00e0 \u0111\u01a1n gi\u1ea3n h\u00f3a c\u1ee7a \u0110\u1ea1o lu\u1eadt DISCLOSE (S. 3369). \u0110\u01b0\u1ee3c gi\u1edbi thi\u1ec7u b\u1edfi Th\u01b0\u1ee3ng ngh\u1ecb s\u0129 Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), v\u00e0 \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c \u0111\u1ed3ng b\u1ea3o tr\u1ee3 b\u1edfi 27 th\u01b0\u1ee3ng ngh\u1ecb s\u0129 kh\u00e1c, d\u1ef1 lu\u1eadt s\u1ebd \u00e1p \u0111\u1eb7t c\u00e1c y\u00eau c\u1ea7u m\u1edbi, r\u1ea5t c\u1ea7n thi\u1ebft \u0111\u1ed1i v\u1edbi vi\u1ec7c c\u00f4ng b\u1ed1 th\u00f4ng tin v\u1ec1 chi ti\u00eau ch\u00ednh tr\u1ecb c\u1ee7a c\u00e1c t\u1eadp \u0111o\u00e0n v\u00e0 c\u00f4ng \u0111o\u00e0n trong c\u00e1c cu\u1ed9c b\u1ea7u c\u1eed li\u00ean bang. C\u00e1c ti\u00eau chu\u1ea9n c\u00f4ng b\u1ed1 \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c c\u1ea3i thi\u1ec7n s\u1ebd \u0111\u00f3ng c\u00e1c l\u1ed7 h\u1ed5ng trong lu\u1eadt hi\u1ec7n h\u00e0nh cho ph\u00e9p c\u00e1i g\u1ecdi l\u00e0 Super PAC che gi\u1ea5u ngu\u1ed3n thu nh\u1eadp th\u1ef1c s\u1ef1 c\u1ee7a h\u1ecd kh\u1ecfi t\u1ea7m nh\u00ecn c\u1ee7a c\u00f4ng ch\u00fang. B\u1ea3n ghi nh\u1edb n\u00e0y nh\u1eb1m m\u1ee5c \u0111\u00edch ph\u00e1c th\u1ea3o c\u01a1 s\u1edf l\u00fd lu\u1eadn v\u00e0 c\u00e1c \u0111i\u1ec1u kho\u1ea3n c\u01a1 b\u1ea3n c\u1ee7a lu\u1eadt v\u00e0 t\u1ea7m quan tr\u1ecdng c\u1ee7a n\u00f3 \u0111\u1ed1i v\u1edbi h\u1ec7 th\u1ed1ng ch\u00ednh tr\u1ecb c\u1ee7a ch\u00fang ta.<\/p>
L\u00dd L\u1ecaCH<\/p>
Since January 2010, when the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations and labor unions can draw unlimited amounts of money from their treasuries to influence elections, advocates of campaign finance reform have made strengthened disclosure requirements their top priority. In 2010, \"independent\" groups that shielded their donors from disclosure made more than $132 million in campaign-related expenditures, according to the Sunlight Foundation. A flood of secret spending in the 2012 presidential primaries appears certain to grow into a tsunami by this fall.<\/p>
The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act of 2010 (DISCLOSE Act), drafted shortly after the Citizens United decision, passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan vote (219-206) in 2010 and was supported by 59 of 100 senators; it died when supporters in the Senate could not muster a 60th vote to break a Republican-led filibuster. While S. 3369 differs from the 2010 legislation in significant respects (detail below), all the changes have been tailored to address specific objections from senators who opposed the previous version; because of that, the new bill is likely to garner majority support and is threatened chiefly by obstructionists using the Senate's filibuster rule.<\/p>
\u0110I\u1ec2M N\u1ed4I B\u1eacT C\u1ee6A S. 3369<\/p>
The bill requires organizations - unions, corporations, political action committees Super PACs - that make more than $10,000 in \"campaign-related disbursements\" to disclose the name of any donor providing $10,000 or more to finance that spending. This requirement would close a loophole in current law that allows tax-exempt \"Super PACs\" and groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to shield the identities of the donors financing their political spending.<\/p>
D\u1ef1 lu\u1eadt n\u00e0y s\u1ebd kh\u00f4ng c\u00f3 hi\u1ec7u l\u1ef1c cho \u0111\u1ebfn ng\u00e0y 1 th\u00e1ng 1 n\u0103m 2013.<\/p>
THAY \u0110\u1ed4I T\u1eea LU\u1eacT N\u0102M 2010<\/p>
S. 3369 is a \"clean\" bill; provisions from the 2010 legislation banning political spending by government contractors, placing additional disclosure requirements on political spending by lobbyists, and limiting political spending by U.S. corporations that are partially owned by foreign firms, have been stripped out of S. 3369. Also gone are \"Stand by your ad,\" provisions that would have required independent groups broadcasting political ads to list the names of their top donors within each ad. <\/p>
\u01afU \u0110I\u1ec2M V\u00c0 NH\u01af\u1ee2C \u0110I\u1ec2M<\/p>
The DISCLOSE Act is grounded in the principle expressed by the late Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis that \"sunshine is the best disinfectant.\" DISCLOSE supporters argue that secret money in politics is an invitation to corruption and that public release of the identity of donors makes elected officials less inclined to risk the negative publicity and potential criminal prosecution that would follow attempts to reward those donors. For the same reason, disclosure makes donors less likely to seek political favors, they assert. DISCLOSE supporters also believe that in evaluating messages from and about political candidates, voters have a right to know who is paying for those messages.<\/p>
In Citizens United, an 8-1 majority of the Supreme Court declared disclosure requirements constitutional. \"The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and message,\" the Court said. In Doe v. Reed, a case decided shortly after Citizens United, Justice Antonin Scalia eloquently made the case for disclosure: \"Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which.campaigns anonymously.and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.\"<\/p>
L\u00e3nh \u0111\u1ea1o \u0111\u1ea3ng C\u1ed9ng h\u00f2a t\u1ea1i Th\u01b0\u1ee3ng vi\u1ec7n Mitch McConnell v\u00e0 Ph\u00f2ng Th\u01b0\u01a1ng m\u1ea1i Hoa K\u1ef3 \u0111\u00e3 n\u1ed5i l\u00ean nh\u01b0 nh\u1eefng ng\u01b0\u1eddi ph\u1ea3n \u0111\u1ed1i vi\u1ec7c ti\u1ebft l\u1ed9 th\u00f4ng tin n\u1ed5i b\u1eadt nh\u1ea5t. C\u1ea3 hai \u0111\u1ec1u cho r\u1eb1ng \u0110\u1ea1o lu\u1eadt DISCLOSE s\u1ebd \u0111\u1eb7t g\u00e1nh n\u1eb7ng l\u00ean c\u00e1c t\u1eadp \u0111o\u00e0n m\u00e0 kh\u00f4ng \u00e1p d\u1ee5ng cho c\u00e1c c\u00f4ng \u0111o\u00e0n v\u00e0 m\u1ee5c \u0111\u00edch th\u1ef1c s\u1ef1 c\u1ee7a n\u00f3 l\u00e0 \u0111\u1ea9y c\u00e1c t\u1eadp \u0111o\u00e0n ra kh\u1ecfi \u0111\u1ea5u tr\u01b0\u1eddng ch\u00ednh tr\u1ecb; h\u1ecd cho r\u1eb1ng thay v\u00ec m\u1ea1o hi\u1ec3m b\u1ecb ng\u01b0\u1eddi ti\u00eau d\u00f9ng t\u1ea9y chay v\u00ec kh\u00f4ng \u0111\u1ed3ng t\u00ecnh v\u1edbi chi ti\u00eau ch\u00ednh tr\u1ecb c\u1ee7a h\u1ecd ho\u1eb7c b\u1ecb c\u00e1c quan ch\u1ee9c \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c b\u1ea7u nh\u1eafm \u0111\u1ebfn tr\u1ea3 th\u00f9, c\u00e1c t\u1eadp \u0111o\u00e0n s\u1ebd ch\u1ecdn \u0111\u00f3ng s\u1ed5 s\u00e9c v\u00e0 gi\u1eef im l\u1eb7ng. <\/p>
The DISCLOSE Act \"is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies.\" McConnell said in a widely-publicized speech last month. \"Those pushing the DISCLOSE Act have a simple view: if the Supreme Court is no longer willing to limit the speech of those who oppose their agenda, they'll find other ways to do it.\"<\/p>
PH\u00c2N T\u00cdCH<\/p>
The arguments against DISCLOSE do not stand up to scrutiny. Disclosure laws already on the books protect individual and corporate speakers from harassment and allow those who can show they've been injured to seek an exemption from disclosure requirements. Consumer boycotts by individuals who disagree with a particular corporation's speech are not harassment and are themselves a constitutionally-protected form of free expression.<\/p>
\u0110\u1ea1o lu\u1eadt DISCLOSE x\u1eed l\u00fd chi ti\u00eau ch\u00ednh tr\u1ecb c\u1ee7a c\u00f4ng ty v\u00e0 li\u00ean \u0111o\u00e0n gi\u1ed1ng h\u1ec7t nhau. N\u1ebfu m\u1ed9t li\u00ean \u0111o\u00e0n tham gia v\u00e0o chi ti\u00eau ch\u00ednh tr\u1ecb t\u00ednh ph\u00ed h\u1ed9i vi\u00ean c\u1ee7a b\u1ea5t k\u1ef3 th\u00e0nh vi\u00ean n\u00e0o nhi\u1ec1u h\u01a1n $10.000 ho\u1eb7c ch\u1ea5p nh\u1eadn c\u00e1c kho\u1ea3n quy\u00ean g\u00f3p t\u1ed5ng c\u1ed9ng nhi\u1ec1u h\u01a1n $10.000 t\u1eeb th\u00e0nh vi\u00ean \u0111\u00f3, th\u00ec vi\u1ec7c ti\u1ebft l\u1ed9 s\u1ebd l\u00e0 b\u1eaft bu\u1ed9c. T\u01b0\u01a1ng t\u1ef1 nh\u01b0 v\u1eady, m\u1ed9t c\u00f4ng ty ho\u1eb7c Super PAC tham gia v\u00e0o chi ti\u00eau ch\u00ednh tr\u1ecb s\u1ebd b\u1ecb bu\u1ed9c ph\u1ea3i ti\u1ebft l\u1ed9 ch\u1ec9 t\u00ean c\u1ee7a c\u00e1c nh\u00e0 t\u00e0i tr\u1ee3 \u0111\u00f3ng g\u00f3p \u00edt nh\u1ea5t $10.000.<\/p>
The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected any arguments that disclosure requirements silence speech, and has long upheld them as constitutional because they serve an important governmental interest of giving voters critical information about those who are trying to influence our elections. As Justice Kennedy said in Citizens United, disclosure lets \"citizens see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests.\"<\/p>"}}]},"yoast_head":"\n