DISCLOSE – sign petition to support disclsure of political spending

Let’s get as many to sign petition as possible thanks
Pam Person

From: info@barbaraboxer.com
To: phppwp@aol.com
Sent: 7/12/2012 7:03:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: DISCLOSE secret spending


Dear Pam,

On Monday, the Senate will vote on the DISCLOSE Act, which would require the special interests trying to buy our elections to step out of the shadows and take responsibility for the attacks they fund. WE NEED TO MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD NOW.

The right-wing has a plan: To take back our Democratic Senate and our country by flooding the airwaves with attacks paid for by secret special interests. Well, we cannot let that happen.

So I am asking members of our PAC for a Change community to join supporters of Senators Michael Bennet (CO), Sherrod Brown (OH), Dick Durbin (IL), Al Franken (MN), Kay Hagan (NC), Patrick Leahy (VT), Claire McCaskill (MO), Bob Menendez (NJ), Jeff Merkley (OR), Patty Murray (WA), Bill Nelson (FL), Chuck Schumer (NY), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Jon Tester (MT), Tom Udall (NM), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and Progressives United to stand up and be counted before Monday’s vote.

Will you add your name to the petition in favor of the DISCLOSE Act before Monday’s vote?

The Supreme Court recently made clear that they are keeping open the floodgates on corporate spending in our elections. That means it is up to the Senate to take action

This entry was posted in HCCN. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to DISCLOSE – sign petition to support disclsure of political spending

  1. Dick Atlee says:

    If I were to sign this petition, it would be the third DISCLOSE petition I’ve signed, in addition to calling the two ladies themselves and hearing the usual “no position provided yet” response. I wonder what the effectiveness is of having numerous scattered petitions with duplicate signatures…

    Just a comment on procedure — any such political solicitation comes with one or more tracking URLs (the long strings of random characters). A tracking URL identifies any any person using it to get to the petition site as having received it from the person passing it around — that is, if I click on that link and sign the petition, they (whoever they are) know that I am connected to Pam in some way. (Note that the link is not to Barbara Boxer but to a marketing firm.) In terms of privacy (for those of us who don’t see why people we don’t know at the other end of these emails should know who our friends and contacts are), it’s better for the person passing on such solicitations to

    a. use the emailed link to go to the petition site, b. copy the resulting URL (which is usually the generic link to the page) from the browser’s location window, and then c. paste THAT into the passed on email in place of the first tracking URL in the email, and d. delete all the subsequent instances of the tracking URL in the solicitation (they’re redundant and often designed to show the solicitors how much they had to say before persuading you to sign the petition).

    If this isn’t done, then people like me, who are concerned about this sort of thing, can’t get to the petition without exposing ourselves, and thus might not go to it. If this seems picky or impertinent, please accept my apologies. I’m just trying to get at how the surveillance society is even being implemented by our friends (who also want to bring in as many possible contributors as possible).


    PS: Because such emails contain “unsubscribe” links, it would in many cases be quite easy for someone to unsubscribe the person who is passing on the email (Pam in this case) from the particular list. So it’s best to remove EVERYTHING from the message that comes after the signature.

    Phppwp@aol.com wrote, On 7/15/12 10:58 AM:

    _______________________________________________ HCCN mailing list HCCN@mainetalk.org http://mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/hccn_mainetalk.org

Comments are closed.