My reply to Senator Murry's response

Dear Senator Murray,

I respect your position and truly appreciate the response however canned it may have been. 

As stated before, while I have many issues that I could raise about such a bill, my concerns here are related to the 1st amendment rights of those running against an incumbent. You did not touch on this in your reply.

Could you explain to me the importance of protecting the incumbent from election campaign criticism?

Or why I as a citizen would want you to:

• Impose sweeping new regulations on organizations like the National Right to Work Committee, to keep them quiet and cripple their effectiveness during election years;

• Force grassroots organizations to publicize and release the names of their top five contributors making them vulnerable to threats, intimidation or worse from political dissidents;

• Require organizations to expose the location of their top donor's home and workplace in the disclaimer at the end of every television ad.

I understand not wanting foreign interests campaigning in our elections. That is not how we do things. But I don't want my name and contact info on some list just because I donated some money. That is none of anyones concern but mine and whether or not I choose to write it off on my taxes. My choice. This would not be in your best interest either. If, for example, I was planning on contributing to your campaign I would think twice if I thought my life was going to become an open book to whomever might chose to threaten or intimidate our family.

I realize that this bill did not pass today but it is still disconcerting to me. I look forward to reading the revisions and your contribution to them.

Teri Gelseth

As expected, Senate GOP blocks campaign bill - Yahoo! News

Hurray! The first amendment lives to fight another day :D

As expected, Senate GOP blocks campaign bill - Yahoo! News

Response from Senator Murray

Responding to my most recently letter. If you missed it yo may want to read it first. 

Dear Ms. Gelseth:

Thank you for writing to me regarding S.3295, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act.   It is good to hear from you. 

The Supreme Court, in a closely divided 5-4 ruling on the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission case, overturned efforts made under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act) to curb the corrupting influence that unrestricted spending can have on federal elections. This decision specifically lifted the restriction on corporations and unions participating in electioneering communications during the blackout periods before primary and general federal elections.  This decision opens up our elections to foreign influence by allowing foreign owned companies or foreign subsidiaries to run television and radio ads for and against candidates.  The DISCLOSE Act is an effort to further clarify federal election campaign law, restore parity in our electoral system, and limit foreign influence in our elections.  I am a cosponsor of this important legislation.

While Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission overturned important protections for the electorate, eight justices in the decision agreed that Congress did have the ability to make these organizations publically disclose their spending and include disclaimers in these electioneering communications saying who paid for the ad.  Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion of the Court, wrote that, "Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way." 

In the spirit of this ruling, the DISCLOSE Act would allow organizations to engage in electioneering communication but require the CEO of the organization funding the television and radio ads to announce that he or she "approves this message," just like federal candidates are required to do now.  Additionally, the Act would require the top five contributors be listed on the screen or on the radio. In addition corporations, unions, and other groups would have to disclose their political spending to their shareholders. 

On June 24, 2010 the House passed the DISCLOSE Act by a vote of 219 to 206, and I fully expect the Senate to take up this matter this summer.  I know that there are concerns regarding this legislation and I take these concerns very seriously.  As I work with my colleagues on this legislation I will keep your thoughts in mind.  With that said I do believe that Congress must pass a bill to ensure voters know who is behind campaign advertisements, and limits the ability for foreign governments and foreign owned companies to influence American elections.

Again, thank you for contacting me.  If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my updates at http://murray.senate.gov/updates.  Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I may be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Patty Murray
United States Senator

War Bill Could Be Stopped Today With 144 Votes

They are voting this afternoon in hopes of ending funding for our patriots overseas. They have also suspended the 2/3 vote in an attempt to make this happen.

Stop them!

War Bill Could Be Stopped Today With 144 Votes

My most recent letter to congress "Disclose Act" (S. 3295)

I must insist you vote for free speech and against the "Disclose Act" (S. 3295). This bill infringes on our constitutional right and gives you and other government officials too much power. Power that was never intended to be bestowed upon any one or any branch of government. I am very disappointed in your representation of our values and in your record as a senator.

This is a Government by the people for the people. Not to the people at the people.

I have so much more to say on this matter but at this point I implore you to vote against this 1st amendment quashing,'Oh poor me I have tenure I want to keep all my power and all your money' (S. 3295) act. It is a disgrace.

I should not be the one that is disappointed with you, you should be disappointed with yourself!

Andrew Gunther: USDA Admits Link Between Antibiotic Use by Big Ag and Human Health

Andrew Gunther: USDA Admits Link Between Antibiotic Use by Big Ag and Human Health

Remember the Guy that wouldn't take the Flag down?

I love this....and this man certainly doesn't look 90 years 
old!     

Great soldier's story...   

Head east from Carthage on Mississippi 16 toward Philadelphia.  After a few miles a sign says you’re in Edinburg.  It’s a good thing the sign’s there, because there’s no other way to tell.

On June 15, 1919, Van T. Barfoot was born in Edinburg -- probably didn’t make much news back then. 

Twenty-five years later, on May 23, 1944, near Carano, Italy, Van T. Barfoot, who had enlisted in the Army in 1940, set out to flank German machine gun positions from which fire was coming down on his fellow soldiers. He advanced through a minefield, took out three enemy machine gun  positions and returned with 17 prisoners of war.

If that wasn’t enough for a day’s work, he later took on and destroyed three German tanks sent to retake the 
machine gun positions.

That probably didn’t make much news either, given the scope of the war, but it did earn Van T. Barfoot, who retired as a colonel after also serving in Korea and Vietnam, a Congressional Medal of Honor.

What did make news last week was a neighborhood association’s quibble with how the 90-year-old veteran chose to fly the American flag outside his suburban
Virginia home.  Seems the rules said a flag could be flown on a house-mounted bracket, but, for decorum, items such as Barfoot’s 21-foot flagpole were unsuitable.

He had been denied a permit for the pole, erected it anyway and was facing court action if he didn’t take it down.  

Since the story made national TV, the neighborhood association has rethought its position and agreed to indulge this old hero who dwells among them.

“In the time I have left I plan to continue to fly the American flag without nterference,” Barfoot told The Associated Press.

As well he should.

And if any of his neighbors still takes a notion to contest him, they might want to read his Medal of Honor citation. It indicates he’s not real good at backing down.

Van T. Barfoot’s Medal of Honor citation: 

"This 1944 Medal of Honor citation, listed with the National Medal of Honor Society, is for Second ieutenant 
(then Tech Sergeant) Van T. Barfoot, 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry Division:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled
to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a
direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then  abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot.

Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and
consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. 

From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. 

While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety.  

Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.^[7]"