It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Legislation that is expected to reach the House floor this week would give corporations and other large donors a greater role in presidential elections by dismantling the public campaign finance system.
Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) introduced a bill that would end public financing of presidential elections on the anniversary of the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. The bill, HR 359, would eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account. It currently has 18 cosponsors, all of whom are Republican.
The Citizens United decision overturned nearly a century of restrictions on campaign spending, allowing corporations, unions and other groups to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns without having to identify themselves. In a 5-4 decision last year, the US Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on spending amounted to a violation of First Amendment rights.
Originally posted by LanMan54
reply to post by whaaa
The 'system' that is now in place is growing in power and complexity every second. It monitors, manipulates, and controls a great number of things and people. One day, it will be given 'breath', that is it will become conscious of itself, appearing as a living entity, looked up to in a godlike way by those who created it. It will be given the ability to 'speak', that is commune directly to those humans who worship it. I choose to refuse to become a part of it. Will you?
Originally posted by beezzer
Your OP stated unions as well. I thought they gave unlimited ammounts to democrats already.
Now an even playing field is bad?
Originally posted by whaaa
Originally posted by beezzer
Your OP stated unions as well. I thought they gave unlimited ammounts to democrats already.
Now an even playing field is bad?
How is distancing the voters from elections; regardless of where the money comes from; making an even playing field?
Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.edit on 26-1-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by beezzer
Your OP stated unions as well. I thought they gave unlimited ammounts to democrats already.
Now an even playing field is bad?
In pursuit of his vision, Stern has turned the SEIU into a massive grassroots army that can mobilize in behalf of candidates and legislation. The scope of its activities in 2008 was epic. Stern bragged that “we spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million, to be exact — and we’re proud of it.” Ironically, SEIU spent so much in 2008 that it had to take out massive loans to keep operating, including $10 million from — you guessed it — Bank of America. The cash crunch also forced SEIU to implement a round of layoffs, leading to a surreal hall-of-mirrors moment when the Union of Union Representatives filed a complaint against SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Undaunted, SEIU has set aside $85 million to spend over the next two years on political advocacy. The union started the year with three major objectives: a union-friendly stimulus, a union-friendly health-care bill, and a bill that would make it easier to organize workers into unions. It has brought its influence to bear on all three of these debates, with varying degrees of success.
Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by whaaa
You have conveniently overlooked the fact that Obama secured the democratic nomination in large part through his pledge to accept only "public funding," which he promptly abandoned in favor of undisclosed (to this day) donors and sources at large.
Even before Citizens United, public employee unions and private unions were pouring hundreds of millions of $$ into campaigns, without comparable offsets from conservative sources. Now that corporations generally have been allowed to match the left-leaning union money, it all seems somehow "unfair?"
This is the fearful response of the protected and self-serving liberal interests to real opposition.
The "fair" response would be for the OP and the unions to abandon private contributions and wholeheartedly endorse public financing ONLY. That will never happen. Until then, why not leave the floodgates open? Scared?