Republican senators shoot down a triple whammy of proposed election security laws The US Senate on Wednesday blocked a trio of law bills that aimed to make America's elections more secure and transparent. The Honest Ads Act, spearheaded by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who is among those running for president in 2020, would, if passed, force social media networks to reveal the organisations paying for political ads …
If you read the top portion, you'll see it was introduced in Senate (05/16/2019).
Yes, but the money is still allocated. This happens sometimes when the FY for the allocated money has expired. So, as in the past, that one billion dollars for expired FY2019 might just.... disappear (into a Cayman Island bank account maybe?)
Right, it would be cheaper and better to just require voters to ID themselves, that is, if the Democrat party didn't always vote that one down, and call it racist. As though anyone living in the US doesn't have ID or can't get it free at the DMV or other .gov outlet.
When did this become a partisan politic outlet, anyway - a very one sided one.
Dude it's a joke, there is zero evidence after years of people trying desperately to prove Russia messed with our elections. Did they mess with Hillary being completely out of touch with her constiuents?
Hillary did the same thing Bush senior did, they assumed they were going to win and thought it was in the bag. Both were caught with pants down.
Look at Wayne county in Michigan, they voted for Obama and then voted for Trump. It was a huge story on election night. Please tell me how Russia told Wayne County in Michigan whom to vote for or how they tricked an entire area like that.
Sad to see on a website like this where nobody posted zero evidence of it occurring but people still parrot it. I don't believe Obama cheated (I believe he is a citizen as well, bet that destroys like 99% of counter arguements) and I don't believe Trump cheated. It is just a good way to sell advertising revenue while people keep trying to make stuff up.
If I missed a relevant post please show me a link, I am not perfect so maybe someone here actually has real irrefutable evidence to show the rest of us.
Agreed. If they were really concerned about voting interference then at least one of these bills would be to require identification at all voting locations and double checking mail-in ballots for deceased voters. Maybe a byline about not counting any votes from counties that allow illegal aliens to vote en mass (looking at YOU California).
Yea, the way out voting system is setup, there's not much chance of direct hacking (these systems are supposed to talk over only secured transmission lines, not directly on the internet). I'm much more concerned with voter fraud than I am hacking.
Apparently you don't remember a few years back when a Republican who was overseeing the voting disappeared for a couple days with the flash drive from the electronic machines. Supposedly, she was merging the results together in Microsoft Access. What kind of F-ed up S is that? You cannot trust the electronic voting machines. Anyone who works i IT knows that. If you have access to the data, you can do whatever you want with it. No system is secure. Paper ballots or at least a paper audit trail is the only way to go. Also, there were Republican states that intentionally disabled the audit trails. Funny how Jill Stein of the Green Party was the one trying to get the two corrupt parties to do an audit.
I agree as well. The Democrat Party is dead set against the one thing that would really help with vote fiddling of all kinds: Voter ID.
The fact that they use the race card to oppose Voter ID, with no evidence that it harms anyone but cheaters, kinda indicates what they're up to.
"Sad to see on a website like this where nobody posted zero evidence of it occurring but people still parrot it".
Narratives are like intellectual territory - once people have accepted them, they will fight to keep them. "A poor thing, but mine own". And many people who believe and eagerly repeat lies do so in the pathetic belief that doing so somehow puts them "one up" on those who disbelieve.
"It often happens that, if a lie be believed only for an hour, it has done its work, and there is no further occasion for it".
- Swift, The Examiner, 1715.
> "When did this become a partisan politic outlet, anyway - a very one sided one."
Actually the Reg is LESS partisan-left than it was a year ago, if you can believe it. Still pretty far left, but that's typical for anything coming from Britain or Europe. Part of the territory.
It was getting so ugly last year, that I guess the money people realized the politics was getting in the way of revenue. Would help if they sacked one or two of their contributors from San Francisco. Those folks make the Brits look like Margret Thatcher.
Yes I've wondered, and I have researched it too. Sure enough, the US is not as far left as Europe. And it's not just me that thinks so. Ph we have our festering pockets of liberalism, typically decaying cities run by Democrats.
If you want to blame me for the difference, I shant stop you. Don't agree tho.
We do, but because the ASA is specifically excluded from oversight of political advertising, I think this actually causes problems in the UK. There's a general understanding that "if it wasn't true, they wouldn't be allowed to say it" which is fair enough most of the time but means that political advertising either online, in print, or on billboards, etc. can get away with - essentially - lying, without any consequences whatsoever.
The ASA did used to police political advertising as well, but that was taken away from it on the understandable basis that it was unable to respond in a timely enough manner to the kind of advertising used in the short timeframe of, say, an election campaign. The power was taken away on the basis that a new body would be set up which was specifically designed to respond quickly. Fair enough, except the new body was set up so now... nobody regulates political advertising.
Wow, if only...
Besieged by television ads for lying politicians and shyster lawyers who promise to get me $800-grillion for my car wreck injury, I'm even more in love with my Tivo's advert-skip feature which lets me bypass most of those. I would love it even MORE if those ads were banned outright as they appear to be for you lot.
It's easy to say "Turn it off," but we all know that's not going to be possible for many. Those poor SOB's have little else in life, if you can call that "living."
My "TV" is the view I get hiking across beautiful places found only out of doors. No ads out there!
Well, there is the occasional billboard, but I have plans for those... >:-)
Re: ASA
From their website:
Ultimately if advertisers and broadcasters persistently break the Advertising Codes and don’t work with us, we can refer them to other bodies for further action, such as Trading Standards or Ofcom.
So, if you don't obey their rules they might tell on you to another agency? Sounds like they can't 'insist' on bupkis.
Not quite. There are a limited number of slots they can use, so it's not wall-to-wall at every ad-break. Likewise, a political party has to meet certain thresholds before it can be given one of the broadcast slots, eg the Monster Raving Looney Party doesn't get one. Oh yes, and it's not all broadcasters.
the Monster Raving Looney Party doesn't get one
I think it depends on the election. They certainly got one for the Welsh Assembly elections in 2016. They have some impressive policies, and they're not all madcap ideas like repopulating the river Taff with mermaids or establishing a Welsh Dragon breeding programme.
My near-16-year-old is seriously considering voting for them if someone manages to lower the age to 16 for the next General or Assembly election...
M.
"I think it depends on the election. They certainly got one for the Welsh Assembly elections in 2016. They have some impressive policies, and they're not all madcap ideas like repopulating the river Taff with mermaids or establishing a Welsh Dragon breeding programme."
I agree with that! If you read over the MRLP manifestos over that last mumbldy years, you quite often find policies which became mainstream and then enacted years later.
In Britain we have the Advertising Standards Agency, which does indeed insist on truth in advertising.
Well that worked so well on the £350 Million sign on the big red brexit bus.
(Yes, I do realise brexit was not an election but still it was a very divisive lie for such a massively important referendum that effected everyone in the United Kingdom).
Soviet communism "succeeded" for 70-ish years until it finally collapsed. Putin's cleptocracy (upvoted you for that) hasn't yet had enough time to be deemed a true success or simply not yet collapsed under its own weight like its predecessor.
Soviet Communism "Succeed"? For whom? No one but the top soviets were living any dreams. No freedom of speech lest you become like the 10s of millions in a mass grave.. Not what I call success.
Scary thing is with todays tech China is proving that the "thought police" can become real.
Aparrently this board is now controlled by communists, who almost paradoxically claim to hate the Russians, who aren't even communist.
We are selectively reporting the news here - Republicans have been working to get voter ID passed but are always blocked by the left.
We already switched back to paper ballots where I live. There's no need for ID here, as in small towns, everyone knows everyone. This isn't Chicago or another dem run dense urban area famous for corruption - most of the US is a lot nicer.
Putin must be the most amazing guy on earth - According to the news, the Russians spend a tiny fraction of a percent what any candidate spends on an election - yet always get their way, which is of course, whatever the media doesn't like. The difference in spend last time was far larger than any Russian addition, yet according to the MSM, the wrong guy won because of it.
Looks to me like the media - owned by only a couple shell companies - is the one who thinks they should decide elections - or their masters think that. It's clear they have major influence, but as this very article shows - it needn't be fair and often isn't even called out by the simplest check of facts and history.
It's almost as if the Russians are a manufactured enemy to distract from the real problems we have. Old trick, see the HL Mencken quote. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
If a leader tries to make peace, they are instantly called a traitor or Russian asset. Even ones who haven't been voted in yet - say, Tulsi Gabbard - and ones from the past. This pattern isn't new. Those who have their noses in the trough benefit from protecting us from non threats, and defend their rice bowls fiercely. Resulting in jokes like Boeing (most of their money is in mil contracts, making planes crash is a sideline). Who protects us from that?
Where does the value come from to give out more "free stuff"? Are doctors, pharma, schools going to work for free? Or is there actually no such thing as a free lunch? You can print currency all day - and they do, devaluing my savings - but that doesn't actually grow food and so on.
The only ones spouting alarmist and incendiary rhetoric are Trump and his proxies. Also they're the ones that take reasoned analyses and suspicions and make them into these farcical things that are then ridiculed by them as alarmist.
So basically you're calling an arsonist your savior.
These GOP [redacted] have their eyes more focussed on Campain Contributions that will fund their next holiday (i.e. Term in DC) rather than making Democracy work for the people of the USA.
I hope that they all get a good beating along with El Dictator Trumpo next November but it is probably wishful thinking.
The USA will get the president that outside interests want not what is best for the country. Much like here really.
The country, being as large as it is, is served best by local and state politicians doing their job. Look around the country and you'll see some cities and states having success while others are not, regardless of the party affiliation of the POTUS.
Regarding parties, both have their career hacks who do little to improve the quality of life for their constituents, yet continue to get re-elected because their sheep vote the party line.
As a supervisor in the logistics field, I can say that my area has become highly competitive when it comes to recruiting and hiring. Under the previous administration, we would have 25 or more job applicants per opening. Now, we have had several openings for over a year with not enough applicants. Other local logistic companies are experiencing similar trends. This is somewhat anecdotal of course, because I cannot comment on other industries in the area and their hiring struggles.
Rather than drawing our politicans by party lines, it'd be nice if we could get it enshrined in law that they simply have to wear shirts displaying their sponsorship, with larger logos based on larger funding. I have a mental image of congress looking like a NASCAR driver's meeting...
(I also have an image of Ajit Pai unable to stand under the weight of a billboard strapped to him.)
There are websites for knowing about funding, and plenty of info on what the PACs are up to.
Strangely, the media almost never points that out. No one seems to want to turn over a rock they themselves are wriggling under.
Try this in google - political funding open Secrets - I just gave you more of that info in less than a sentence than the MSM does in a year, and look how hard it was.
Funny how that is.
Seems doomed to failure, and there seems to have been clues that they'd be knocked out. Not a left-pondian so may be missing something, but if it's so easy to kill bills in the senate, why didn't the sponsors get their party colleagues in the house to introduce them there?
Is it just posturing and publicity seeking, particularly from the presidential candidates?
Icon; closest available to katanas >>>
Most likely there is more to this. Like the Conservative MP who did the same thing in rejecting a proposed banning "upskirting".
Despite the claims of the left, he wasn't opposed to laws against upskirting, he was opposed to the government using time which was supposed to be reserved for back benchers and he had form for rejecting government bills presented in this way.
But the fact his objection was merely procedural didn't get widely reported.
And you can bet that if post January 2017 El Reg had covered it, they would have missed out why he did it.
That fact was reported. Also reported was the fact that he lied about the reason; as he himself has introduced multiple private member bills.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/16/sir-christopher-chope-hates-private-members-bills-but-has-created-31-in-the-last-year-7636993/
if it's so easy to kill bills in the senate, why didn't the sponsors get their party colleagues in the house to introduce them there?
Bills are introduced in both chambers, and voted on separately. Often a bill will pass one chamber and not the other. When a bill does pass in both chambers, usually it will be two different versions, and then committees will have to reconcile them and the reconciled version then gets voted on by both chambers.
The Senate's Honest Ad Act bill, S.1989, happens to be identical to the House's Honest Ad Act bill, H.4077. Looks like it was introduced in the House the same day it was introduced in the Senate (2017-10-19, or a bit more than two years ago) but is stuck in committee. I haven't checked the other two but I expect the situation is similar.
So it's not a question of "introduce in the House and bypass the Senate". You have to get through both, and at least one person in each chamber has to sponsor the bill there.
Yes, I knew bills have be passed through both chambers and reconciled as necessary. But I was wondering why you'd start at the hard end, when (I assume) a bill passed in the House should have more chance of being "taken seriously" in the Senate? Sorry for the confusion in my question; I didn't think anyone would think you could bypass either.
... when (I assume) a bill passed in the House should have more chance of being "taken seriously" in the Senate?
It doesn't work that way. Both House and Senate are independent of each other, and although sponsoring congressmen and senators may coordinate efforts, and introduce identical bills, by the time individual legislators in both houses have introduced their amendments and resolved their objections, the bills will be different from each other.
Then comes the negotiating between House and Senate to resolve those differences. Often the White House is consulted as well, as it would be a waste of time to resolve a bill into a form that will get vetoed by the President (assuming a veto could not be overridden).
So there's no ease-into-law path to follow when it comes to introducing a bill. While it would have been nice to get even one of these bills passed, at this point showing the fecklessness of the the vetoing senators is useful too.
The US system may be different, but in the UK we vote for people, not parties. The members we voted in then elect a PM.
The party affiliation is secondary yet asserts a huge pressure on how the members vote.
How is this even legal ?
In any reasonable arena they would seen as what they are : immoral pressure groups applying bribes.
That's certainly how it's supposed to work, yes.
Reality is that people vote for parties, often blindly, at all levels.
The worst part is that the party policies aren't always the candidates, and vice versa, but if you are 51% Conservative/Labour/Other, then it seems to be close enough for many.
Reality is that people vote for parties, often blindly, at all levels.
I have always voted for the Unicorn Party because my parents did and their parents did and so did theirs.
Just to move to the other side of the Pond now. There was some Republican guy (sorry, too hard to narrow down) who was accused of sexual assault but republicans were told to vote for him on the basis that he was a Republican. Didn't matter that he was the scum of the earth but that he was a Republican party member.
"The worst part is that the party policies aren't always the candidates [...]"For several UK MPs their first loyalty on human rights issues is not to the Party, nor to their constituents, but to the dictates of their religious organisation's hierarchy.
So what you're saying is... That they're loyal to what they value the most?
(God is higher than man after all, His laws and ways of treating people are so much nicer than how nasty we are to each other all the time)
If you were to look at what was being dealt with and why, perhaps you'd show a little more smarts :)
(Or perhaps you're one of those who think all "alternative lifestyles" should be applauded and followed, including those that involve torturing children and infants to death, or sexually assaulting children, among many other things? Should God have let that behaviour go unchecked? Do you support the rape, torture and murder of children?)
"That they're loyal to what they value the most?"
Their identity has been forged from earliest childhood to obey their religion's hierarchy. That is - at best - the vested interest of those in authority decreeing what dogma and shibboleths are mandatory beliefs.
The less justifiable the dogma or a shibboleth is - the better it is as a test of tribal loyalty.
"God is higher than man after all, [...]"In which case the creator of God is even higher - but then that creator must also have a creator... who must have.....
Why would God need a creator?
Ah, you're one of those who believe absolutely nothing magically created everything. And a logical extension of that belief is that you must also believe in Harry Potter, Star Trek, fairies down the bottom of the garden (no wait those are real, I was one of them myself!) and all sorts of other interesting and quite weird stuff. That or you don't fully believe after all...
Sheesh. Some people will believe anything!
Probably not. They've just finally come to the realization that it doesn't matter if they're guilty or not, because the electorate will vote on party lines regardless of what they actually do. As long as they're against the "other team" they can be as guilty as they want of whatever they feel like, and they will still get sufficient support to get re-elected.
because the electorate will vote on party lines regardless of what they actually do.
Exactly. Those of us who are "non-affiliated" are a dying minority as party politics use the "herd mentality" to it's full advantage. It's a pity that critical thinking is rapidly disappearing and being replaced by "follow the herd".
>because the electorate will vote on party lines regardless of what they actually do
But since their electorate is dying out - they are going to have to rely on gerrymandering, voter suppression and electoral college rules to win.
The other side are also going to have to learn that all women and anybody <100% white won't automatically vote for them.
"[...] and young people get older and gain experience and some wisdom."
They learn pragmatism to replace much of their youthful idealism. Unfortunately that can often lead to perceived self-interest that is visceral convenience rather than fact based. The human mind tends to believe what it wants to believe viz confirmation bias.
El Reg - in the interest of complete information, can we know what excuses the Republicans used for rejecting these bills?
Then we might be able to form an opinion about whether these excuses are reasonable, or (as we all suspect) it's just self-serving corruption.
My thinking exactly.
Maybe El Reg misplaced their journalism flash card that listed the five Ws?
I'l try to help them out:
Who: RepublicansWhat: Rejected three bills that were purportedly written by Democrats to increase integrity in elections
When: On Wednesday
Where: US Senate
Why: [El Reg, this one's for you to figure out]
I'll leave the How and the Source for them, too.
Interesting. El Reg:
The US Senate on Wednesday blocked a trio of law bills
The Hill (linked to by El Reg in the article):
Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation
Given that the article in the Hill was published at 16:58 EST the difference can't be explained by time zones between the US and the UK.
Although The Hill did not provide further details, this quote is interesting:
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) blocked its passage, arguing the bill had “more red flags than the Chinese Embassy.” He added that the level of funding was excessive when considering the $380 million appropriated to states last year for election security.[...]
Kennedy said he intended to introduce an election security bill later on Tuesday that would require the chief election official from each state to report any foreign individuals with access to election machines or election information technology to the Election Assistance Commission.
Absolutely. No US citizen would ever violate election laws or unduly influence the process. Never happened, never will.
On a serious note, for those unfamiliar with the laws, restricting access to US citizens is quite common for sensitive information and systems. In addition, involvement of foreigners in federal elections is already limited. Beyond not being allowed to cast a ballot, no financial contributions may be made (or accepted). Volunteering is fine, though - as long as it is not funded by a foreign political entity. Interestingly, there are few restrictions for US nationals who want to affect foreign elections.
Don't forget what the hackers (Russians or otherwise) found: proof that the DNC had actively attempted to sabotage the Bernie Sanders campaign.
The revelations led to the DNC chair stepping down just days before their annual conference.
The DNC got what it wanted - Hillary Clinton as their candidate. Ironically, it is not unlikely that Sanders would have beaten Trump in the general elections whereas Clinton lost.
I know that many people believe this, but while Bernie Sanders may have energized the Democratic base, he would have been anathema to nearly all middle-of-the-road voters in the United States, and thus his candidacy would instead have eliminated the Electoral College as a factor in what would have been Donald J. Trump's landslide win. He applied the word "socialist" to himself in a public place, after all.
“The goal of the Honest Ads Act is simple: to ensure that voters know who is paying to influence our political system".
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
You must be joking! Just imagine the consternation among the congresscritters if there was a threat of their constituents finding out who really pays them!
Like a lot of laws such as freedom of information laws they're to protect certain high profile individuals and groups from prosecution not there for you and me to learn the truth. I believe the people are able to discern fact from fiction. Its certain self-serving politicians who mix it up for us not Russian hackers. We don't need the government to tell us what to think. What we do know is CNN thinks its their responsibility. If you don't believe me I can find the clip. I don't for second believe that Trump had anything to do with Russian intervention in the 2016 election.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
