Ending Corporate Influence on Elections Act

[sactowndog]

This should be interesting as hell as to who lines up behind it and who doesn’t. 
 

Hawley’s new bill, called the Ending Corporate Influence on Elections Act, is aimed at reversing the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that loosened campaign finance laws – an effort that aligns the conservative Missouri Republican with many Democrats. Hawley’s bill would ban publicly traded corporations from making independent expenditures and political advertisements – and ban those publicly traded companies from giving money to super PACs.

we know Mitch is opposed 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/31/politics/mitch-mcconnell-josh-hawley-citizens-united/index.html

 

 

 

[grandjean87]

Josh Hawley is a certifiable cvnt.   That's all. 

[modestobulldog]

Union influence should be banned as well.

[RamSack]

On 10/31/2023 at 6:36 PM, grandjean87 said:

Josh Hawley is a certifiable cvnt.   That's all. 

Agreed, but I like this bill even though he’s spearheading it.

[SalinasSpartan]

Sounds good. Will also never get a floor vote.

[toonkee]

What's his angle? 

[RSF]

On 11/1/2023 at 8:12 AM, toonkee said:

What's his angle? 

It could be seen as a populist move...and he knows it has no chance of passing.  For a guy who clearly has Presidential aspirations, it's a slick move.

[grandjean87]

Gee, I wonder if this will clear up dark money once and for all. 

[bornontheblue]

0 percent chance of passing. 

Our country has WAY worse problems than corporate influence on elections, and corporate influence has been gradually shifting leftward for a long while now. 

 

[SalinasSpartan]

 

On 11/1/2023 at 7:57 AM, bornontheblue said:

0 percent chance of passing. 

Our country has WAY worse problems than corporate influence on elections, and corporate influence has been gradually shifting leftward for a long while now. 

 

“Shifting leftward”

[SharkTanked]

On 11/1/2023 at 7:57 AM, bornontheblue said:

0 percent chance of passing. 

Our country has WAY worse problems than corporate influence on elections, and corporate influence has been gradually shifting leftward for a long while now. 

 

Actually, I think it may be the root of the disease.

I am in favor of any attempts to shut down dark money influence in our elections. But it won't happen. That horse left the barn a long time ago.

[grandjean87]

On 11/1/2023 at 7:12 AM, toonkee said:

What's his angle? 

From his Senate website:

"For decades, Corporate America has funneled billions of dollars into elections in favor of politicians who favor their woke, social agendas—instead of American voters' interests. This legislation would hold mega-corporations' feet to the fire and stop their dollars from buying our elections," said Senator Hawley."

[grandjean87]

On 11/1/2023 at 9:02 AM, SharkTanked said:

Actually, I think it may be the root of the disease.

I am in favor of any attempts to shut down dark money influence in our elections. But it won't happen. That horse left the barn a long time ago.

I saw the buzz on Hawley's proposed bill yesterday.   It's not just science reporting that is hilariously inaccurate.

Where to start?  First, if you pass a bill into law that is directly in opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that just might be a problem. 

But, let's skip that first thing.  The bill is directed at publicly traded corporations.  Admittedly, they hold the largest balance sheets in our system, but the owners are still individuals and exempt entities.  No restrictions on private corporations. No restrictions on nonprofits.  No restrictions on unions.  No restrictions on the evil George Soros or whichever Koch Bro is still alive.  Dark money continues. 

[SharkTanked]

On 11/1/2023 at 8:47 AM, grandjean87 said:

I saw the buzz on Harley's proposed bill yesterday.   It's not just science reporting that is hilariously inaccurate.

Where to start?  First, if you pass a bill into law that is directly in opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that just might be a problem. 

But, let's skip that first thing.  The bill is directed at publicly traded corporations.  Admittedly, they hold the largest balance sheets in our system, but the owners are still individuals and exempt entities.  No restrictions on private corporations. No restrictions on nonprofits.  No restrictions on unions.  No restrictions on the evil George Soros or whichever Koch Bro is still alive.  Dark money continues. 

[renoskier]

On 11/1/2023 at 7:21 AM, grandjean87 said:

Gee, I wonder if this will clear up dark money once and for all. 

I think SCOTUS got it right with Citizens United.

I would like to see legislation which brings transparency. 

[grandjean87]

On 11/1/2023 at 9:59 AM, renoskier said:

I think SCOTUS got it right with Citizens United.

I would like to see legislation which brings transparency. 

One idea has long been no $$ limits just transparency for all political issues and candidates' funding including ads.  I'm fairly certain that won't work as a means to limit influence, but it might be the least we can do?

 

[SharkTanked]

On 11/1/2023 at 9:17 AM, grandjean87 said:

One idea has long been no $$ limits just transparency for all political issues and candidates' funding including ads.  I'm fairly certain that won't work as a means to limit influence, but it might be the least we can do?

 

I think, ultimately, that's all we can ask. I particularly want to know if non-citizens or dual-citizens are donating in any capacity, and to who/what.

As to Citizens United, I am not a fan of quasi-personhood for corporations, because while they are made up of people, they are not inherently people. But it is the law of the land now.

[renoskier]

On 11/1/2023 at 9:17 AM, grandjean87 said:

One idea has long been no $$ limits just transparency for all political issues and candidates' funding including ads.  I'm fairly certain that won't work as a means to limit influence, but it might be the least we can do?

 

@sactowndog might hate it but...

in this day and age of social media, if there was transparency, "Cancel Culture" which is really just the voice of the masses, would change/alter peoples spending habits rather quickly

$$$ is "free speech"..."free speech" sometimes has consequences 

[SharkTanked]

On 11/1/2023 at 9:24 AM, renoskier said:

@sactowndog might hate it but...

in this day and age of social media, if there was transparency, "Cancel Culture" which is really just the voice of the masses, would change/alter peoples spending habits rather quickly

$$$ is "free speech"..."free speech" sometimes has consequences 

Exactly. I think public opinion is more powerful than it has ever been thanks to social media. It is also more malleable than it has ever been (the downside).

[SalinasSpartan]

On 11/1/2023 at 9:23 AM, SharkTanked said:

I think, ultimately, that's all we can ask. I particularly want to know if non-citizens or dual-citizens are donating in any capacity, and to who/what.

As to Citizens United, I am not a fan of quasi-personhood for corporations, because while they are made up of people, they are not inherently people. But it is the law of the land now.

Tracking dual citizens in any way that distinguishes them from other citizens would make me pretty phuckin uncomfortable.