Letters for Scott (Continued)

( – promoted by Rob “EaBo Clipper” Eno)

In the runup to the special election, members of RMG posted letters on behalf of Scott Brown to this site.  Now that Scott is in office, it’s important that we continue to answer attacks by his critics (when Scott’s right).

Below is my response to a letter from the League of Women Voters attacking Scott’s position on the DISCLOSE Act.  (DD4RP provides a discussion of the Act here.  http://redmassgroup.com/showDi…

Excerpt from the LWV letter: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-sear…

The LWVCC writes to convey our deep disappointment regarding Senator Brown’s position on the DISCLOSE Act (http://scottbrown.senate. gov/public/index.cfm/201 0/7/brown – opposes-disclose-act-in-responseletter).

When representatives from our local league met with Senator Brown’s staff on May 12, transparency in government was one of the issues discussed, and it appeared to provide common ground.

We find Senator Brown’s recently stated position regarding the DISCLOSE Act in direct contradiction to his campaign promises to fight for transparency in Washington.

and my response:

The July 22 issue of the XXXXXXX Journal contained a letter from the League of Women Voters criticizing Senator Scott Brown  on his opposition to the DISCLOSE Act. I offer three observations concerning the Act and address some of the issues raised in the League’s letter.

First, Senator Brown is not alone in his opposition to the Act. The American Civil Liberties Union strongly opposed the Act on the grounds that it would compromise free speech by wiping away donor anonymity and discouraging participation in the political process. I encourage readers to consider the League’s statements in context of the letter from the ACLU to the members of the U.S. Senate appearing at: http://www.aclu.org/files/asse…

Second, in contrast to League’s claims, the Act would not apply equally to all organizations. The Act imposes restrictions on smaller and newer organizations and exempts many larger, established organizations from its requirements. As the ACLU puts it: “[t]hose groups not challenging the status quo would be protected; those challenging the status quo would be suppressed.”

Democracy is strengthened when new ideas are brought into the debate, not through enhancing the power of entrenched interests.

Third, if the League supports the level of transparency required by the Act, I look to them to voluntarily comply with the requirements of the Act as if it were law. They may do so by posting on their website their membership and donor lists along with amount contributed by each person. It shouldn’t be a problem for the League to make these disclosures if, as they claim, the Act would not impose an undue burden on and compromise the privacy of members of other organizations.

It is important that those of us in the center and the right continue to respond to attacks from the left.    

About yankeepundit