Tagged: U.S. Senator John McCain

Speaking on the Senate floor Monday, U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Az., warned that Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., delaying a vote on the defense bill could be used as an example of the need for filibuster reform.

Paul has been pushing to force an amendment vote on the controversial National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens who are judged to be involved in terrorism. He says it's important to protect those individuals constitutional rights and has jousted with fellow Republican over the rights of "crazy bastards" on the floor.

But McCain—who was using support for the measure as a sign of bipartisan cooperation in the Senate—has had enough with Paul's tactics.

From Roll Call:

On the floor, McCain said that the “Senator from Kentucky” gave notice that he would object to any unanimous consent requests or votes, a stance that would prevent the Senate from adopting the manager’s package and any other miscellaneous amendments. McCain later confirmed to CQ Roll Call that he was referring to Paul when he spoke.

A bill that would require Super PACs to release their donor list was defeated due to a Republican filibuster led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who has been a vocal opponent of the legislation.

The DISCLOSE (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections) Act failed by a 51-to-44 vote, falling short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Since last month, McConnell has ripped the legislation as a form of intimidation being led by the Obama administration.

Local and national critics, including U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., have pounced on McConnell's opposition, pointing out that he once supported the idea of full transparency.

From The Daily Beast:

Originally, conservatives like Mitch McConnell who backed the money-is-speech position offered the consolation prize of radical transparency and instant disclosure for all election-related spending, including independent expenditures.

But now such a proposal represents, in McConnell’s words, an attempt to “protect unpopular Democrat politicians by silencing their critics and exempting their campaign supporters from an all-out attack on the First Amendment.”