It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


CEOs to Congress: Quit calling us for campaign cash

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:08 PM

CEOs to Congress: Quit calling us for campaign cash

WASHINGTON – Dozens of current and former corporate executives have a message for Congress: Quit hitting us up for campaign cash.

Roughly 40 executives from companies including Playboy Enterprises, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's, the Seagram's liquor company, toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines and Men's Wearhouse sent a letter to congressional leaders Friday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers —
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:08 PM
Isn't this like johns complaining that they're being solicited by too many whores?

The Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on ads urging people to vote for or against candidates. The decision was sought by interest groups including one that represents American businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They argued that restrictions on ads they could finance close to elections violated their free-speech rights, and the court agreed.

Congressional candidates who find themselves attacked by a flood of special-interest TV ads in the 2010 elections will likely reach out to their party's biggest donors for money to help them counter the blitz.

"Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors," the business executives' letter says. "And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress. With additional money flowing into the system due to the court's decision, the fundraising pressure on members of Congress will only increase."

Among the others signing the letter are current or former executives of Quaker Chemical Corp., Brita Products Co., San Diego National Bank, MetLife and Crate & Barrel.

They sent the letter through Fair Elections Now, a coalition of good-government groups who hope the Supreme Court ruling will lead Congress to pass public campaign financing legislation they have long been seeking. Others supporting public financing include former campaign strategists for President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush.

A Senate proposal would fund campaigns with a fee on businesses that get $10 million or more in government contracts. The House would finance it with revenue from auctioning off the television broadcast spectrum, which was opened when the country switched to digital broadcasting. Spectrums are the airwaves used by the government, television and radio broadcasters and cell phone companies, among others.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 1/22/2010 by GoldenFleece]

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:29 PM
Exactly, and if thats the case why are there so many lobbyists up on capital hill. Or companies paying for last falls Teabaggers "revolution". These companies are trying to say they are the victims and there not.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:31 PM
Good right? Means law makers will have to "earn" more popularity.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:43 PM
Those sneaky devils...
This is just a watch this hand, look at all the sparkly things..
(While we secretly dip the other hand first into your pocket, then thrust it forcefully into your mind)

They say this as if they don't have enough money to go around, when in fact the Supreme Court just told us that they have so much money that there's more than enough to buy every politician in America.


posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:47 PM
Congress to Lobbies:

"Quit giving us millions of dollars."

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:57 PM

They argued that restrictions on ads they could finance close to elections violated their free-speech rights, and the court agreed

Tell me why a corporation needs any sort of freedom speech rights? They aren't people, they aren't citizens.

I love how they just tthrew unions in there too, like it was something the unions were pushing for. Even the unions can't compete with the corporation cash follow.

The 5 judges in supreme court that voted yes are either completely clueless, or are just following orders. I'd like to see every single one of them try to defend there vote live on TV.

Well I propose to the courts that the excessive spending by corporations on candidates will hinder my freedom of speech rights becuase my voice can't be heard through the vast walls of money stacked between the candidates and myself.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by tooo many pills]

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:13 PM
This is what needs to happend but the likelyhood of it actually happending is almost no-existent. These companies that give the law makers millions apon millions of dollars to promote their interest instead of the interest of the people is what has made America slip into Coperate Facism, which will have to lead to a revloution if not we will continue to loose are freedoms day by day.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:26 PM
This is what these companies are stating:

They cannot compete against the most powerful corporations. The biggest, the wealthiest will have the most sway in government now.

This is the same argument I've been making for the middle class and the poor who have completely lost their voice in our government because of the supreme court ruling.

We might as well burn the Constitution now as it's pretty much worthless unless corporations are denied the rights of a HUMAN BEING.

Until then...corporate's here.

Breathe the air.....AHHHHH.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:51 PM
So, have any of you gone over to the Fair Elections Now and read the act?

Second line

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:57 PM
reply to post by David9176

Right on! It is now theoretically possible for the biggest fortune 500 companies to throw millions of dollars to their candidates of choice until they have a vast enough majority to change the two term limit on a President or congress and a point them for life.

How could you know what candidate to vote for if every single commerical is bought up by the big corporations, and they could launch smear campaigns of gigantic proportions against the candidate that is for the People and not the corporations.

This is why we had a limit on corporation campaign spending, not to hinder their freedom of speech, but to guarantee the People their rights will not be overshadowed. All the members of corporations have the same rights as us, why does their business need to be treated as a person too?

top topics


log in