Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Democrats plan to introduce legislation next week that would sharply limit the ability of foreign-connected companies to participate in U.S. politics and require greater transparency from corporations, unions and nonprofit groups that pay for political advertising, according to a confidential summary of the bill.
The proposal, spearheaded by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), is aimed at blunting the effect of a Supreme Court ruling in January that permits companies and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money for or against political candidates. President Obama has sharply attacked the ruling, and many Democrats fear it will unleash a flood of corporate spending that is likely to favor Republicans.
According to the summary, obtained by The Washington Post, the legislation would require corporate chief executives or group leaders to publicly attach their names to ads, much like political candidates are required to do. It would also mandate disclosure of major donors whose money is used for "campaign-related activity."
The measure would also tighten political restrictions on foreign-based corporations, which would be defined as any company that has 20 percent foreign voting shares, a majority of foreign directors or a foreign national leading U.S. operations.
In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech and can therefore use their profits to support or oppose individual candidates, as long as they do not do so in direct coordination with campaigns.
I think this is a step in the right direction. The Citizens United case is extremely unpopular. Perhaps progressives and the tea party can agree on this one?
According to a recent Quinnipiac nationwide poll, 79% of respondents disapprove of the Supreme Court ruling on the Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission case.
Go figure, they want this in place before the elections because they are scared for their lives. It was ok for George Soros to fund the Obama race though.
Go figure, they want this in place before the elections because they are scared for their lives. It was ok for George Soros to fund the Obama race though.
Yeah, Soros funded the entire Obama campaign.
The Citizens United ruling upends the court's precendent that corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates. It rejects most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act.
The Citizens United ruling gives corporations the same rights as people. It's complete B.S. so I'm glad that Schumer & Van Hollen are stepping up court's terrible ruling.
The Citizens United ruling upends the court's precendent that corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates. It rejects most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act.
Why can't corportation have the same rights to lobby as individuals? They are taxed just like individuals (which is double taxation on the shareholders). If they have to pay taxes they should have a seat at the table. Remember the cry 'no taxation without representation'?
MeCain-Feingold was a blatently unconstitutional attack on freedom of speech and that is how the court ruled. Any law that congress tries to pass will also be shot down if it contains the same language.
Foreign corporations are already banned from giving money to politicians, which is why the Chinese had to funnel the money through intermediaries when funding the Clintons (rememebr the buddists' fund raisers and that guy who gave millions to Hillary even though he lived in a building that looked like a shack?)
Quote:
The Citizens United ruling gives corporations the same rights as people. It's complete B.S. so I'm glad that Schumer & Van Hollen are stepping up court's terrible ruling.
Surprise. Corproations DO have the same rights as individuals. They also have the same legal responsibilities which is why they can be sued. This is nothing new and its the way its always been. The McCain-Feingold law was just a short term interruption in that and now it has been removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
The only way to get rid of special interest influence is to abolish special interest law.
This is very true. If we had a simple, flat tax and no deductions then corporations wouldn't have any reason to lobby congress. Of course, that's exactly why congress will never do that. They WANT corproations, unions, and every other special interest group giving them money and competing for special tax breaks. A flat tax would take that power away from congress and do a lot to reduce corruption.
This is very true. If we had a simple, flat tax and no deductions then corporations wouldn't have any reason to lobby congress. Of course, that's exactly why congress will never do that. They WANT corproations, unions, and every other special interest group giving them money and competing for special tax breaks. A flat tax would take that power away from congress and do a lot to reduce corruption.
I meant ANY special interest law. Not just those that favor Unions or Corporations, but any law that mentions anything or applies to anone other than simply The People or "all people".
Why can't corportation have the same rights to lobby as individuals? They are taxed just like individuals (which is double taxation on the shareholders). If they have to pay taxes they should have a seat at the table. Remember the cry 'no taxation without representation'?
Corporations already had a seat at the table, not they have their own wing at the table. Now they can dip into their treasuries to spend as much as they want to support or oppose individual candidates. More power to corporations, and less power to everyday Americans in the political process is scary IMO. It sets terrible precedent.
They arre just worried about the next election cycle and limiting their oppostion really.
I guess Republican Rep. Mike Castle is also worried about the next election cycle, and of course, limiting his opposition.
CASTLE AND VAN HOLLEN ANNOUNCE BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT IN RESPONSE TO CITIZENS UNITED - The Online Office of Congressman Mike Castle (http://castle.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=181799 - broken link)
He's working with Democrat Chris Van Hollen on this issue.
Why can't corportation have the same rights to lobby as individuals? They are taxed just like individuals (which is double taxation on the shareholders). If they have to pay taxes they should have a seat at the table. Remember the cry 'no taxation without representation'?
MeCain-Feingold was a blatently unconstitutional attack on freedom of speech and that is how the court ruled. Any law that congress tries to pass will also be shot down if it contains the same language.
Corporations should be granted the right to vote, by this logic. Representation isn't throwing money at politicians, representation is being able to vote. It's pretty much the one way in which we are all supposed to be equal, though that has clearly been warped by monetary influence in politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
