Citizens United has its problems, but that isn't one of them.
"corporations are people" is one of the biggest crocks of I've ever heard.
Citizens United has its problems, but that isn't one of them.
of course it is the fundamental problem, enabling Corporate-Americans' (political) money to be classified as protected Free Speech as if it were speech by a Human-American.
Second, is that the brain-dead opinion accompanying CU ruling that Corps could be trusted to be honest and good faith. G M A F B
Citizen's United lumped all businesses into the same category of persons. The ruling refused to distinguish between the press and any other type of business. That was the core of it. I think it's a big problem.
can you point to the relevant language in the decision?
"We reject Citizens United's challenge to the disclaimer and disclosure provisions," he said from the bench. "Those mechanisms provide information to the electorate. The resulting transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and different messages."
"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of
expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with
the information needed to hold corporations and elected
officials accountable for their positions and supporters.
Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's
political speech advances the corporation's interest in
making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests."
Crossroads GPS, co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove, joined with a handful of other conservative "social welfare" organizations, spent more than $30 million on ads attacking President Obama through the end of May.
Crossroads then announced a new ad buy of $25 million.
Tax records show that its donors have included between a dozen and two dozen contributors of at least $1 million each. A couple of the contributors gave as much as $10 million.
This handful of anonymous donors accounted for nearly 90 percent of all the money raised by Crossroads GPS in 2010 and 2011.
So what about Justice Kennedy and his call for effective transparency?
"I think what Kennedy was talking about was sort of the almost platonic view of disclosure, that people will receive this information and make some sort of rational decision about what to do about it,"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...n?sc=17&f=1003
First one I found. I remember something much more explicit but don't have time to read more of the decision atm.
Nice to see you are still butthurt about me though. Gotta love the passive aggressive sanctimony. toodaloo
Why would they take another crack at it?
If I remember correctly, the case only nullified one part of the law. I see no reason why another case couldn't strip more of it away.
take all the time you need. so far you got nothing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/us...=fb-share&_r=0It is the nightmare scenario for those who worry that the modern campaign finance system has opened up new frontiers of political corruption: A candidate colludes with wealthy corporate backers and promises to defend their interests if elected. The companies spend heavily to elect the candidate, but hide the money by funneling it through a nonprofit group. And the main purpose of the nonprofit appears to be getting the candidate elected.
But according to investigators, exactly such a plan is unfolding in an extraordinary case in Utah, a state with a cozy political establishment, where business holds great sway and there are no limits on campaign donations.
Public records, affidavits and a special legislative report released last week offer a strikingly candid view inside the world of political nonprofits, where big money sluices into campaigns behind a veil of secrecy. The proliferation of such groups — and what campaign watchdogs say is their widespread, illegal use to hide donations — are at the heart of new rules now being drafted by the Internal Revenue Service to rein in election spending by nonprofit “social welfare” groups, which unlike traditional political action committees do not have to disclose their donors.
In Utah, the do ents show, a former state attorney general, John Swallow, sought to transform his office into a defender of payday loan companies, an industry criticized for preying on the poor with short-term loans at exorbitant interest rates. Mr. Swallow, who was elected in 2012, resigned in November after less than a year in office amid growing scrutiny of potential corruption.
“They needed a friend, and the only way he could help them was if they helped get him elected attorney general,” State Representative James A. Dunnigan, who led the investigation in the Utah House of Representatives, said in an interview last week.
What is rare about the Utah case, investigators and campaign finance experts say, is not just the brazenness of the scheme, but the discovery of dozens of do ents describing it in fine detail.
Mr. Swallow and his campaign, they say, exploited a web of vaguely named nonprofit organizations in several states to mask hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from payday lenders. His campaign strategist, Jason Powers, both established the groups — known as 501(c)(4)s after the section of the federal tax code that governs them — and raked in consulting fees as the cash moved between them. And affidavits filed by the Utah State Bureau of Investigation suggest that Mr. Powers may have falsified tax do ents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.
“What the Swallow case raises is the possibility that political money is never really traceable,” said David Donnelly, executive director of the Public Campaign Action Fund, which advocates stricter campaign finance laws.
http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...623-story.htmlThe California Senate gave final approval Monday to a measure asking Congress to call a convention to amend the U.S. Cons ution and overturn the Citizens United court decision that eliminated limits on corporate spending in elections.
Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) said California becomes the second state to pe ion for a change in the Cons ution to clarify that corporations can face limits in their campaign contributions because money does not cons ute speech and may be legislatively limited.
thanks, Repug extreme right wing SCOTUS!
"dark money" is the euphemism, "money laundering" by secret donors is what Grayson so accurately calls it,
America is so ed and un able as BigCorp/United Corporations of America, and 1% buy, actually OWN, ever deeper and wider into govt at all levels, executive, legislative, judicial.
FEC to consider closing the loophole allowing corporations owned by foreigners to make unlimited campaign contributions:
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/29/...uld-be-ending/“I was pretty pleased to see that [the GOP commissioners] received my specifics pretty warmly,” said Ellen Weintraub, one of the FEC’s Democratic members. “Even if you don’t believe the entire system needs reform, it’s hard to argue that, for example, it would be OK for U.S. corporations totally owned by foreign governments to make unlimited expenditures in U.S. elections.”
The FEC did not vote today on Weintraub’s new proposals. Instead, Matthew S. Petersen, one of the Republican members of the FEC, said he would “noodle through some of these a little bit more, see if … there might be areas of agreement, see if there are counter proposals and get a little bit of a better understanding of the nature of some of these proposals.”
Under current law, any company incorporated in the U.S. is considered to be a U.S. national — even if it is 100 percent owned by foreign individuals, corporations or governments. This quirk unexpectedly gained significance after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections (as long as the expenditures are theoretically “independent” from political campaigns).
During President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address, he predicted Citizens United would therefore “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” Recent reporting by The Intercept demonstrated that Obama’s concern was justified: A California corporation owned by Chinese nationals donated $1.3 million to a Jeb Bush Super PAC while following advice from Charlie Spies, a top GOP campaign finance lawyer.
ss of billionaires.
The political systems is, has been for a long time, totally corrupted.
99% of politicians are FOR SALE, and very cheap compared to the deep pockets of the buyers.
San Antonio's Lamar Smith, AGW denier and thrower of subpoenas at govt scientists
https://www.opensecrets.org/politici...?cid=N00001811
sure to be appealed:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-ruling-762440The decision paves the way for new requirements that could force nonprofits to disclose donors who give least $200 toward influencing federal elections. (Social-welfare nonprofits such as Crossroads GPS are allowed to spend money on elections so long as it's not their "major purpose.")
In the post Citizens United era, spending by these groups has ballooned, but they have largely avoided having to report individual donors as a result of the FEC's belief that their names only need to be disclosed in limited cir stances.
1.3 million FEC fine, related to Jeb Bush 2016:A California corporation owned by Chinese nationals donated $1.3 million to a Jeb Bush Super PAC while following advice from Charlie Spies, a top GOP campaign finance lawyer.
https://boingboing.net/2019/03/12/charlie-spies.html
Cons utional Amendment to overturn Citizen's United:
https://teddeutch.house.gov/news/doc...umentID=402908
Kevin McCarthy whines that Biden's infrastructure spending is "socialism" , but his district would benefit hugely.
If it passes, KM will claim credit to his voters as the champion of the spending.
"the appearance of conflicts of interest shouldn't be a problem"
so much for transparency being a check against unlimited political spending
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...9-251_p86b.pdf
The problem is that California's argument wasn't about political disclosure, but against charity fraud.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)