"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

1984 is the go-to dystopian novel but in talking about the Disclose Act today the Wall Street Journal leans more toward Animal Farm with the sub-head ("A bill to make political speech freer for some than for others".)  Seems appropriate given the legislation is an exercise in the corruption of power. A snip:

In theory, campaign finance reform is about clean elections, transparency and ending special interest influence. In practice, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a cloture vote for this week on a bill designed to undo a recent Supreme Court free speech decision and give Democrats a fund-raising advantage in the fall elections...In the name of "transparency," the Schumer-Van Hollen legislation tilts the playing field in favor of Democratic candidates by taking direct aim at corporate speech...The Democratic attempts to win support for these faux reforms have been equally cynical. Lawmakers have cut deals with the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club and a few other powerful special interests to exempt them from the new restrictions and, most importantly, remove them as potential obstacles to the bill's passage...This bill restricts the political speech of some in order to enhance the political power of others, which isn't the way democracy is supposed to work.

The WSJ has harsh words for Sen. Schumer, but if you are talking about cynical politics, you won't find one who does it better. Check out this bit:

The chief co-sponsor of the Senate legislation, Schumer said that the changes made last week include new language that treats unions and corporations the same way — correcting an imbalance in the House language that opened up Democrats to charges that they were trying to be more lenient with their traditional fundraising base.

You see it is entirely true and entirely deceptive at the same time -- that my friend is a master politician at work. The key is "correcting an imbalance" not "the imbalance" or "imbalances" just one imbalance, singular. All of the other imbalances remain. I already did this yesterday, so I will let Jeff Patch, at CCP take this one:

...DISCLOSE contained at least four provisions that provided an advantage to labor unions over corporations. Sen. Schumer claims that because one of these provisions was removed, the bill is now "completely balanced" and "treats unions and corporations the same." This claim is absolutely false and evident to anyone who cares to examine the remaining provisions. Furthermore, the affiliate transfer exemption that Schumer removed was only added at the last minute to the bill by Democrats on the House Rules Committee...Removing an unfair union exemption that Democrats added the day before the House vote does not mitigate all the other problems with the DISCLOSE Act.

and Blair emails:

Despite claims that "Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) stripped provisions from [the bill] that Republicans said gave preferential treatment to unions over corporations," the bill being voted on today in the Senate – Schumer II – continues to exempt unions from provisions that apply to corporations.

Disclosure of Donors: Schumer II would require corporations and labor unions to report donors who have given as little as $600 during the year. § 211(a). Because an average union member pays annual dues beneath that threshold, most unions would not be required to disclose donors’ identities even when they spend millions of dollars on political advertising. But corporate donors will regularly pass that low payment threshold, and will thus be disclosed.

"Stand By Your Ad" Disclaimers: Schumer II requires on-air disclaimers by, and top-five-funder listings of, only those who donated $10,000 or more. § 214. This threshold effectively requires members of major trade organizations (corporations) to make disclaimers, but requires no such disclaimers by unions, which are funded primarily through member dues.

Blanket Ban on Political Speech by Large Government Contractors: Schumer II would prohibit government contractors from engaging in political speech if the contractor has a government contract valued at $10 million or more. § 101(a). Unions rarely hold government contracts—let alone contracts valued at $10 million. And although unions and their members receive tremendous amounts of government benefits—through federal grants, collective bargaining agreements, and large federal spending programs, as a few examples—Schumer II does not penalize unions for receiving those benefits.

Blanket Ban on Political Speech by Domestic Corporations with Minority Foreign Ownership: Schumer II continues to contain a prohibition on political speech by "foreign-controlled domestic corporations." Thus, under Schumer II, a domestic corporation that is 80% owned by United States citizens could be banned from engaging in political speech. § 102(a). Schumer II establishes no threshold of foreign membership that would strip a union of its right to speak on political issues.