The Senate convenes at 10 a.m. today and debates a motion to proceed to S. 3268, the DISCLOSE Act, with a cloture vote scheduled for 2:45 p.m.

Several developments:

President Obama made a statement in the Rose Garden Monday afternoon in support of the legislation. The President portrayed people he disagrees with as bad actors, who seek to subvert U.S. democracy and silence critics. The statement was shockingly hostile toward the companies that create jobs in the United States.

At a time of such challenge for America, we can’t afford these political games.  Millions of Americans are struggling to get by, and their voices shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret, special interest advertising.  The American people’s voices should be heard. 

A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections.  It is damaging to our democracy. 

Accusing business leaders and corporations of malign intent reinforces the sense of uncertainty that afflicts the economy.  The message to business: Join us in Recovery Summer, invest in America, you corrupt merchants of greed.

The Washington Post this morning editorialized again in favor of the DISCLOSE Act.  “Vote for disclosure” is restatement of familiar arguments — and familiar omissions. It’s irritating to read an editorial from a major newspaper on disclosure that fails to report that the speech-chilling DISCLOSE Act would not apply to media outlets like the Post, which would be free to editorialize, publish opinion columns, and slant the news with its motivations and interests all kept under wraps. That’s the First Amendment at work, of course, but newspapers editorialists should acknowledge their self-interest: The DISCLOSE Act reinforces the power of mainstream media to shape public opinion.

The National Association of Manufacturers sent a Key Vote letter to the Senate yesterday reaffirming its members’ strong objection to the DISCLOSE Act. The letter is here.

Also Monday, 309 business groups and trade associations (including the NAM) joined in a letter stating their objections to the legislation. To those critics who claim big business and foreign corporations are out to scuttle the legislation, we offer these signators: The Bullhead Area Chamber of Commerce, the IEC of the Texas Panhandle, Nebraska Agri-Business Association, Transportation Intermediaries Association. There are more than 300 more.

The Senate convenes at 10 a.m. today with talking anticipated to continue on S. 3268, the anti-speculation bill. The Senate did unanimously invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to debate on Tuesday. Key points:

Wall Street Journal, “Bill to Curb Energy Speculation Advances in Senate“:

The bill voted Tuesday would order the regulator of the commodities markets, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to eliminate what lawmakers call excessive speculation in petroleum and natural gas by, among other things, limiting the amount of trades by certain market participants.

Unless party leaders reach a compromise in the interim, the next key vote is likely Thursday, when Republicans may block the bill from moving ahead for a final vote if Democrats block votes on proposals to increase domestic exploration and production.

And a good, balanced, fairly reported story from NPR.

Meanwhile, Politico, “‘Gang of 10′ fights for increased drilling“:

Tuesday evening, five Democratic senators met with five of their Republican colleagues to hash out a plan that would include far more drilling — from the land and from the sea — than would be allowed under any current Democratic proposal.

“There’s going to be substantially more drilling and substantially more conservation,” Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) said of the plan her moderate colleagues are hoping to cobble together. “Democratic leaders are going to be pushed, and Republican leaders are going to be pushed.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said the new “Gang of 10” is just trying to overcome some “strongly drawn” battle lines that prevent party leaders from finding common ground.

“We’re not undermining leadership,” Nelson said. “This is not a coup.”

Good luck.

The Senate will get to the cloture vote Tuesday morning on S. 3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act, with the big question being whether Democratic leadership will allow votes on amendments to open additional U.S. areas to domestic energy development. According to this story in The Hill, leadership’s position is, vote for the anti-speculation bill and we might let other votes take place. Maybe.

To those who assess (correctly) the cause of rising energy prices as being substantially  one of supply and demand, the populist bashing of unidentified speculators is clearly political cover, difficult to take all that seriously. And so the temptation might be to say, OK, we’ll give you your populist gesture, you give us the substance of supply.

Except take a look at CRS summary of the speculation bill. It appears to be much more than just a gesture. The legislation dramatically expands the authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, expands government control of a major sector of the economy. It practically screams UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. And yet the bill was only introduced last Thursday, and there have been no committee hearings on it. If the problem is so obvious, then why hadn’t hadn’t we seen legislation earlier? (To be sure, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois has been talking about the issue for more than a week.)

In contrast, legislation that would increase domestic energy supply – via ANWR, OCS, etc. — has been around for years, decades, even. The arguments pro and con are well understood, the legislation already hashed out.

Just because legislation is designed for political purposes doesn’t mean it can’t do damage. Given the public’s growing sentiment for additional supply, is it too much to ask that Congress just vote on additional supply?

More on the debate from the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal:

• Kimberly Strassel, July 11, “Dick Durbin and the Chicago Boys“
• Sen. Dick Durbin, July 15, “I’m Trying to Protect Consumers, Not Speculators“
• Letters, July 17, “To Help, Legislation Must Increase the Energy Supply“

Soon after it convenes at 10 a.m. today, the Senate will turn to S. 3268, the expedited anti-speculation bill introduced on Tuesday by Senate Democratic leadership. (To read the text, start here.) The bill will provide an opening for Round Next of the Great Energy Debate, 2008.

But across town in DAR Constitution Hall, former Democratic President of the Senate Al Gore will present his own grand plan for the globe, the implementation of a world view fundamentally hostile to fossil fuels. Including gasoline. Which is more than $4 a gallon. A world view that despises coal, which generates more than half of U.S. electricity. And prosperity, Gore doesn’t much like U.S. prosperity.

So you can understand some Senators’ consternation about messages being stepped on, mixed, stepped on again, then doused in cold water, and mixed. Kind of like a campfire.

From The Hill:

The former vice president-turned-elder statesman has achieved rock-star status within his party, not to mention a Nobel Prize, for his environmental activism. But Democrats’ political troubles over the issue of gas prices and domestic drilling prompt some lawmakers to wonder about Gore’s timing.

The question some Democrats have is whether a high-profile speech about the importance of protecting the environment might be exploited by Republicans who want to portray their ideological opponents as caring more about polar bears than Americans who have had to pay record prices for gasoline.

Gore’s profession these days is public lecturer, so we’re not sure why we should pay more attention to these remarks than the last 429 Powerpoint presentations he’s given, but since he may conceivably affect legislation, we probably will.

Bet he’ll embrace a new Manhattan Project for alternative energy. An Apollo program to end our reliance on fossil fuels. A Marshall Plan for energy independence. An East German national sports program to achieve VICTORY!

UPDATE: (10:25 a.m.): Ah, Gore’s going with JFK’s “Man on the Moon” program, the 10-year plan. Really not very original.  Still, it’s better than: “We a need new White Sea Canal project.”