You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Campaign finance reform’ tag.

Democrats are hoping to fast-track a set of sweeping new campaign finance regulations to prevent the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision from affecting the November midterm elections.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) on Thursday unveiled the majority party’s legislative response to the Citizens United case, which they and other Democrats — including President Barack Obama — have sharply criticized as one that will “open the floodgates” to corporate financing of federal elections.

Opting against a constitutional amendment to undo the court’s rejection of existing laws that ban certain political spending by corporations, Democrats are proposing to ban donations by foreign-influenced and taxpayer-assisted corporations, as well as a series of tough new disclosure requirements on corporations that would still be allowed to steer money toward political action groups.

“Today we’re beginning to pick up the pieces,” Schumer said at a Thursday press conference in the Capitol.

For full article: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/80745-dems-look-to-crack-down-on-corporate-political-spending-ahead-of-midterms

The Unions are TICKED-OFF over the SCOTUS ruling.  It must be the right thing.

 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-26/campaign-finance-ruling-a-disaster-labor-leader-stern-says.html

Stern also said today that union members would lose their enthusiasm to help re-elect Democrats to Congress in the November mid-term elections if lawmakers don’t deliver on stalled health-care and labor law agendas. Union members would be likely to focus their campaign energy on state governor races, he said.”

“There are a lot of terrorists in the Senate who think we are supposed to negotiate with them when they have their particular needs that they want met,” Stern said.”

     In my humble opinion, if the campaign finance decision flowing from the US Supreme Court yesterday has the likes of Sen. Charles Schumer predicting the demise of our Democracy (Note to Chuck: It’s a Republic) and crying about it, it must have been a fairly good decision.

     My thoughts, without having yet fully analyzing the decision, were validated last night when MSNBC’s resident court jester, Keith Olbermann, went on his latest rant:

Part One:

skip to about 4:20 to hear him really get going.

Part Two:

Momma

Mr. President, Special Interest Money Is Mainly Going To Schumer, Reid, Lincoln…The SCOTUS Decision Just Might Balance The Playing Field And You Can’t Have That.This post is in response to Schumer‘s, Obama‘s, and Nader’s call to pass legislation to basically veto today’s SCOTUS’ decision on McCain-Fingold.  Obama made it a point to stress that industries will flood politics with money. 

Plus, look how well the Dems made out by NOT adding TORT Reform to ObamaCare.  I’ll say it again, it has always been about the money and power.
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/01/my-entry.html

from the Associated Press:

 The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

“The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.”

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns

For full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_campaign_finance

By the Monitor’s Editorial Board The Monitor’s Editorial Board Mon Jul 13, 5:00 am ET

The tide may be turning against years of effort to restrict the influence of money in federal elections.

Will President Obama – who surfed to an election victory on a towering wave of campaign donations – be able to hold back the threatening tide?

One potential setback is beyond his control. The Supreme Court will likely decide in its next term whether to alter more than a century of restrictions on corporate campaign-finance activity in federal elections.

But the president can influence other key issues, if he can summon the political will. So far, he hasn’t shown much.

In his run for president, for instance, Mr. Obama promised to rely on public financing in the general election. The limited funding is meant to act as a brake on spending and donor influence – and put candidates on equal financial footing.

But Obama reneged, becoming the first general election candidate to refuse public funding. He raised record private donations and had a huge war-chest advantage over Republican John McCain, who accepted the $84 million limit of public money.

For full editorial: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090713/cm_csm/ecampaignfinance