The US House of Representatives recently passed, with strong bipartisan support, a bill known as the "Audit The Fed Act", and it's expected to pass the Senate shortly, too. It's purpose is, as the name implies, to audit the Federal Reserve. The Fed's balance sheet has ballooned from $800B in 2007 to $2.8T today, and we don't know where the money went. It seems they've made many promises backed by the US taxpayers, but we don't really know to whom or by how much. Congress is asking for complete transparency with an audit. BRAVO!
But hold on there Kemosabe. There's also a bill before Congress known as "The Disclose Act" that seeks to require transparency in political campaign contributions. Traditional tax-exempt organizations, aka 501(C)(3) in IRS lingo, can make political contributions but must disclose the source of the money they're giving. The currently popular 501(C)(4) "educational" tax-exempt organizations can give all they want through their Super-Pacs WITHOUT disclosing where the money is coming from. (Pretty slick loophole, huh?) And surprise!...surprise!....so far a mere 200 donors have made 80% of all Super Pac donations this campaign season, out of approx. 310 million Americans.
Can you see the potential for abuse here? A wealthy individual or group could quite literally buy a congressman or two (or 535) without We The People ever knowing who's pulling the strings. If there was ever a situation that needed transparency, this is it, but the Republican-controlled Senate refuses to take a vote on it. It's DOA in the Senate.
Come on Republicans. This is making you guys look VERY bad. Whenever someone tries to hide something from me I tend to imagine the worst. How can you be FOR transparency when it suits you (The Audit The Fed Act), but AGAINST transparency when it exposes something you (apparently) don't want exposed (The Disclose Act)? Oh...I think I just answered my own question.
This doesn't pass my smell test.
S
