https://theintercept.com/2018/10/04/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-confirmation-corporate-regulations/
"The interests backing Kavanaugh are hoping that his confirmation will tilt the court and undercut potentially dozens of government policies on clean elections, environmental regulations, bank regulations, and predatory lending, in addition to weakening organized labor."
Showing posts with label Corporate Donations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporate Donations. Show all posts
October 4, 2018
October 2, 2018
February 10, 2018
December 10, 2016
November 16, 2016
The ultimate inside job: Donald Trump’s transition team is a sordid new swamp of lobbyists, donors, family and Republican retreads
The ultimate inside job: Donald Trump’s transition team is a sordid new swamp of lobbyists, donors, family and Republican retreads
"It is not an administration being built to service the public good. It is an administration being built to punish enemies and roll back a century of hard-earned progress. The most frightening part is that Donald Trump, the man at the center of it all, seems to have no idea what he has unleashed."
"It is not an administration being built to service the public good. It is an administration being built to punish enemies and roll back a century of hard-earned progress. The most frightening part is that Donald Trump, the man at the center of it all, seems to have no idea what he has unleashed."
September 21, 2016
September 16, 2016
February 13, 2016
January 28, 2016
January 26, 2016
President Obama On The Verge Of Issuing A “Citizens United Stunner”
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/26/president-obama-verge-pen-citizens-united-stunner.html
"The President is in the midst of very serious plan to issue an executive order that requires companies doing business with the federal government to disclose their political contributions. Just think; with a stroke of his pen the President will make “dark money” donors receiving billions of taxpayer money reveal who they contribute to or lose out on those highly-profitable federal government contracts. Now, of course this does not, in any way, shape or form “overturn” Citizens United. But it is a major step in prompting some companies and corporations doing business with the federal government to rein in some of their dark money efforts to buy influence over the government."
"The President is in the midst of very serious plan to issue an executive order that requires companies doing business with the federal government to disclose their political contributions. Just think; with a stroke of his pen the President will make “dark money” donors receiving billions of taxpayer money reveal who they contribute to or lose out on those highly-profitable federal government contracts. Now, of course this does not, in any way, shape or form “overturn” Citizens United. But it is a major step in prompting some companies and corporations doing business with the federal government to rein in some of their dark money efforts to buy influence over the government."
January 23, 2016
Republicans Panic As Obama Set To Sign Executive Order Making Federal Contractors Disclose Campaign Contributions
http://www.occupydemocrats.com/republicans-panic-as-obama-set-to-sign-executive-order-making-federal-contractors-disclose-campaign-contributions/
"Federal contractors made a killing off of the Iraq War, when Dick Cheney and his cronies privatized half the jobs normally done by American military forces – at the outrageous cost of $189 billion to taxpayers. Now they’re scheming to send our troops back to the Middle East by funneling money to Republican politicians. Neither group will be happy to hear the President’s latest plan – but the American people will be ecstatic!"
"Federal contractors made a killing off of the Iraq War, when Dick Cheney and his cronies privatized half the jobs normally done by American military forces – at the outrageous cost of $189 billion to taxpayers. Now they’re scheming to send our troops back to the Middle East by funneling money to Republican politicians. Neither group will be happy to hear the President’s latest plan – but the American people will be ecstatic!"
January 22, 2016
January 7, 2016
California Ballot Initiative Would Force Lawmakers To List Corporate Donors On Clothing Like NASCAR
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/12/31/california-ballot-initiative-would-force-lawmakers-to-list-corporate-donors-on-clothing-like-nascar/
"Ever since the Supreme Court handed down the Citizen’s United decision, corporations and super wealthy individuals have had the ability to donate unlimited funds in secret to political campaigns. After winning election, political candidates are usually beholden to those who spent big money to help them take office and go on to push for legislation that benefits them instead of the country as a whole. And that is why a new California ballot initiative could be a game-changer that sweeps the country. The initiative is being led by California Is Not For Sale, a group run by San Diego businessman, John Cox. If passed by California voters, lawmakers in the state would have to display the logos of their top ten donors on their clothing “just like a NASCAR driver would for his sponsors.” Indeed, can you imagine Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker speaking live on television with the Koch Industries logo prominently displayed on his jacket? Or Ted Cruz speaking on the Senate floor with a big Goldman Sachs label or a label that says Club For Growth? Or how about House Speaker Paul Ryan banging the gavel with several logos on his suit from Koch Industries to Northwestern Mutual, to AT&T to Blue Cross Blue Shield? At long last, Americans would not have to painstakingly research who is buying politicians in our country. Their names would be clearly seen on the politicians themselves, making it easier to see who is trying to influence our laws, whether it is Walmart or Exxon, or conservative billionaire, Sheldon Adelson."
"Ever since the Supreme Court handed down the Citizen’s United decision, corporations and super wealthy individuals have had the ability to donate unlimited funds in secret to political campaigns. After winning election, political candidates are usually beholden to those who spent big money to help them take office and go on to push for legislation that benefits them instead of the country as a whole. And that is why a new California ballot initiative could be a game-changer that sweeps the country. The initiative is being led by California Is Not For Sale, a group run by San Diego businessman, John Cox. If passed by California voters, lawmakers in the state would have to display the logos of their top ten donors on their clothing “just like a NASCAR driver would for his sponsors.” Indeed, can you imagine Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker speaking live on television with the Koch Industries logo prominently displayed on his jacket? Or Ted Cruz speaking on the Senate floor with a big Goldman Sachs label or a label that says Club For Growth? Or how about House Speaker Paul Ryan banging the gavel with several logos on his suit from Koch Industries to Northwestern Mutual, to AT&T to Blue Cross Blue Shield? At long last, Americans would not have to painstakingly research who is buying politicians in our country. Their names would be clearly seen on the politicians themselves, making it easier to see who is trying to influence our laws, whether it is Walmart or Exxon, or conservative billionaire, Sheldon Adelson."
January 1, 2016
Fifteen Things We Learned About Money in Politics in 2015
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34248-fifteen-things-we-learned-about-money-in-politics-in-2015
"1. If that wasn't enough to convince you that money in politics matters, consider how much reforms are being fought about tooth and nail. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell leveraged his power over the federal budget to strip campaign finance rules from federal law through anti-campaign finance reform riders."
"1. If that wasn't enough to convince you that money in politics matters, consider how much reforms are being fought about tooth and nail. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell leveraged his power over the federal budget to strip campaign finance rules from federal law through anti-campaign finance reform riders."
Campaign Finance Regulators Won't Do Their Job. Can a Lawsuit Force Their Hand?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/campaign-finance-regulators-wont-do-their-job-can-watchdogs-force-their-hand
"It's a case that has haunted campaign finance watchdogs for years. The Commission on Hope, Growth, and Opportunity (CHGO) emerged in early 2010 as a nonprofit that would not engage in political work. Then, in the six weeks before the 2010 elections, the group spent about $4 million on political ads across 15 congressional races, all attacking Democrats. But in filings with the IRS, the group maintained that none of its spending was campaign-related, and it did not disclose any of its spending with the Federal Election Commission. Facing complaints from federal regulators, the group folded. Some of its key players—including Scott Reed, now a top strategist at the US Chamber of Commerce, and Wayne Berman, the chief fundraiser for Marco Rubio's presidential campaign—split more than $1 million in leftover funds. No one involved was ever sanctioned. Almost all the money CHGO raised came from a single donor. The group's ability to spring up, use secret money to influence elections, and then disappear provides a template for rich donors who want to pick off or boost candidates without revealing their political activity."
"It's a case that has haunted campaign finance watchdogs for years. The Commission on Hope, Growth, and Opportunity (CHGO) emerged in early 2010 as a nonprofit that would not engage in political work. Then, in the six weeks before the 2010 elections, the group spent about $4 million on political ads across 15 congressional races, all attacking Democrats. But in filings with the IRS, the group maintained that none of its spending was campaign-related, and it did not disclose any of its spending with the Federal Election Commission. Facing complaints from federal regulators, the group folded. Some of its key players—including Scott Reed, now a top strategist at the US Chamber of Commerce, and Wayne Berman, the chief fundraiser for Marco Rubio's presidential campaign—split more than $1 million in leftover funds. No one involved was ever sanctioned. Almost all the money CHGO raised came from a single donor. The group's ability to spring up, use secret money to influence elections, and then disappear provides a template for rich donors who want to pick off or boost candidates without revealing their political activity."
December 25, 2015
Happy Holidays, Super PACs: FEC Removes Yet Another Block Against Dark Money
Happy Holidays, Super PACs: FEC Removes Yet Another Block Against Dark Money
"Little-noticed rule allows candidates to solicit money for super PACs as long as it's done in a small meeting"
"Little-noticed rule allows candidates to solicit money for super PACs as long as it's done in a small meeting"
December 24, 2015
Ted Cruz Blasted by Fact-Checking Site for Making Ridiculous Claim About the First Amendment
Ted Cruz Blasted by Fact-Checking Site for Making Ridiculous Claim About the First Amendment
"Well, non-partisan fact-checking site Politifact blasted Cruz for a recent statement he made where he accused Democrats of trying to repeal the “freedom of speech” protections given to us in the First Amendment. “The Democrats in the Senate last year introduced a constitutional amendment to repeal the free speech protections of the First Amendment,” Cruz said. Before going forward, I would like to point out that this is one of those statements that only an idiot would believe without actually fact-checking it for themselves. To hear something this radical without questioning the validity of it only proves that those who believed Cruz when he said it are absolutely brainwashed. Of course, it’s not at all true. Politifact cited scholars who said Cruz “ignored critical facts” for the sake of blatantly misrepresenting what this amendment actually would have done. What Ted Cruz is referring to is an amendment Democrats supported to help get money out of politics by allowing states (you know, the whole states’ rights thing) to set their own reasonable limitations on campaign finance laws. Though as many of you might know, because Republicans want more money in politics (which is comically hypocritical considering these are the folks who whine about “big government” and how corrupt it is) they’ve taken up the ludicrous notion that money is “free speech.” Even though it’s fairly obvious that our Founding Fathers did not mean for “freedom of speech” to include the right for the richest among us to buy elections. Freedom of speech is the right for people to say basically anything without the fear or prosecution – it has nothing to do with money."
"Well, non-partisan fact-checking site Politifact blasted Cruz for a recent statement he made where he accused Democrats of trying to repeal the “freedom of speech” protections given to us in the First Amendment. “The Democrats in the Senate last year introduced a constitutional amendment to repeal the free speech protections of the First Amendment,” Cruz said. Before going forward, I would like to point out that this is one of those statements that only an idiot would believe without actually fact-checking it for themselves. To hear something this radical without questioning the validity of it only proves that those who believed Cruz when he said it are absolutely brainwashed. Of course, it’s not at all true. Politifact cited scholars who said Cruz “ignored critical facts” for the sake of blatantly misrepresenting what this amendment actually would have done. What Ted Cruz is referring to is an amendment Democrats supported to help get money out of politics by allowing states (you know, the whole states’ rights thing) to set their own reasonable limitations on campaign finance laws. Though as many of you might know, because Republicans want more money in politics (which is comically hypocritical considering these are the folks who whine about “big government” and how corrupt it is) they’ve taken up the ludicrous notion that money is “free speech.” Even though it’s fairly obvious that our Founding Fathers did not mean for “freedom of speech” to include the right for the richest among us to buy elections. Freedom of speech is the right for people to say basically anything without the fear or prosecution – it has nothing to do with money."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)