"Corporations are people, my friend"?

[ProSense]

Obama Administration Backs DISCLOSE Act

The Obama administraiton “strongly supports” the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act, the White House said in a statement of administration policy on Monday. From the statement:

The DISCLOSE Act is a necessary measure to ensure transparency and accountability and to equip Americans with the tools to know who is attempting to influence the Nation’s elections. The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), allowed unlimited corporate and special-interest money in elections, bringing about an era where corporations and other wealthy interests can exert vastly disproportionate influence, including through anonymous donations. Under the DISCLOSE Act, any “covered organization” that spends $10,000 or more on campaign-related disbursements would be required to file a disclosure report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of the expenditure, and to file a new report for each additional $10,000 or more that is spent. In addition, the bill provides mechanisms to allow organizations to keep non-political donations private. In the absence of the disclosure rules in S. 3369, corporations and wealthy individuals will continue to be able to shield their donations from disclosure. Congress should act now to hold corporations and special interests that participate in the Nation’s elections accountable to the American people.

<...>

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-administration-backs-disclose-act

Do you support Citizens United and/or the DISCLOSE ACT

12 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I support Citizens United, period.
	0 (0%)
	I support Citizens United, and Im against the DISCLOSE Act
	0 (0%)
	I'm against Citizens United, and I support the DISCLOSE Act
	1 (8%)
	I support Citizens United and the DISCLOSE Act
	0 (0%)
	I'm against Citizens United, and I support the DISCLOSE Act, but it doesn't go far enough
	11 (92%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[MADem]

1. TAX contributions over five thousand dollars at the fifteen percent rate.

Tax donations over twenty grand at the twenty percent rate. Contributions, either corporate or bundled, over a hundred grand are taxed at the thirty percent rate. That means if a bundler bundles five bundles of twenty grand, his efforts are taxed at thirty percent.

Hey, to whom much is given, much is expected. Time for the rich to give back to the federal government.

Review every few years, adjust for inflation, but make sure that the adjustment reflects cost of living figures and is not arbitrary to benefit the bigwigs.

Oh, and shields? We don't need no stinking shields. No shields, everything gets published.

[Nye Bevan]

10. It's illegal for corporations to make campaign contributions in Federal elections,

and Citizens United did not affect that.

Are you proposing to overturn this ban so that your new tax will actually raise money?

[MADem]

24. I'm talking about PAC money, individual money, money from any legal resource.

Tax it--like a commodity, like a steak at a restaurant, like a tasteless, bejeweled waistcoat from Fredrick's of Capitol Hill.

The money goes into the federal coffers and is used to pay down the debt. Assuming we are ever in a debt free situation, the money would be dedicated to infrastructure and education.

Of course, I don't rule the world, that will never happen, but I like making the rich help the greater good even if they don't like the idea.

[Deep13]

2. I'm for public financing of elections, with no other monetary sources.

Anyone can say or write whatever he or she wants. LTTE, blogs, FB posts, bullhorn on the street, interviews to media, whatever. But the money must come from the public. Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and democracy is not democracy if it is for sale.

[ProSense]

3. Full campaign finance reform. n/t

[Scuba]

4. +1

[Nye Bevan]

5. Would you allow a corporation to publish a book that criticized an election candidate

two months prior to the election?

[ProSense]

6. Yes

That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

Trying to conflate this with free speech is bullshit.

A book is not the public airwaves, which is what the influx of corporate money is designed to abuse.

[Nye Bevan]

7. So you're OK with a corporation spending a billion dollars to send a book to every voter

in the country, telling them who they think the best candidate is. But it's hard to see how this would be protected by the First Amendment while running a TV ad would not.

[ProSense]

8. Yeah,

I'm OK with every voter throwing it in the trash.

The mail is not the public airwaves. Period.

[Nye Bevan]

9. How about cable TV? On-demand? Satellite? Youtube channels?

Does all that count as "over-the-air"? Or does "over-the-air" mean only channels that you can pick up with an antenna?

If cable TV comes through a wire, is that really "over-the-air"?

Unfortunately the text of the First Amendment does not seem to provide much guidance on these questions.

[ProSense]

11. Are you being obtuse?

"How about cable TV? On-demand? Satellite? Youtube channels?"

Do you understand what constitute the public airwaves?

[Nye Bevan]

12. Actually I didn't. So I Googled it.

Based on the FCC definition it means only the old-style over-the-air stations. So any regulation of political ads on only these stations, but not on cable, satellite, etc., would have a very limited effect.

More problematically for you, courts have ruled that banning political commercials from the public airwaves violates the First Amendment. (See for example http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/divided-9th-circuit-to-allow-political-ads-on-public-airwaves)

It would seem to be almost impossible to get to where you want, therefore, without a Constitutional Amendment.

[ProSense]

14. Good

Based on the FCC definition it means only the old-style over-the-air stations. So any regulation of political ads on only these stations, but not on cable, satellite, etc., would have a very limited effect.

...for you, and thanks for your opinion now that you know.

There is a reason why the RW media owners have fought any attempts to remove Limbaugh from the public airwaves.

You simply underestimate the power.

[Deep13]

19. My feeling is that if the book is published in the usual way...

with a writer seeking publication because he or she thinks it is commercially viable, sure. But I would not allow a corporation to pay to have the book published.

[Nye Bevan]

21. I prefer the full disclosure route to the book-banning route (nt)

[Deep13]

22. Me too. But I do support banning corporate money for books.

You are being disingenuous--and frankly I think you only asked about books to set me up for that little dishonest gem. No one is talking about banning books or any other form of expression. We are talking about money. Congress has the power to regulate commerce. Publishing a book is protected press under the 1st Amendment. Paying millions of dollars to lie to the public is not. Corporations do not write books. Only humans can do that. No one can be punished for writing or publishing. But corporations should be prohibited from buying elections. Have you forgotten that? Has your preoccupation with this false reading of the 1st Am. What about the rights of the 100s of millions of Americans who do not own TV networks or newspapers? Citizens United essentially says the 1st Am. only applies to the super rich. I would like the voices of ordinary people not to be drowned out by corporate cash. The Constitution gives us a right to some degree of democracy too, you know. Since when is the 1st Am. supposed to be the mechanism for killing that democracy rather than preserving it?

Your reading of the 1st Am. is elitist and undemocratic because it builds a wealth advantage into the Constitution to the exclusion of everyone else. Wake up.

[Nye Bevan]

23. Ordinary people can pool their resources with other like-minded folk.

Set up a super-PAC, get enough people to contribute, and you too can produce commercials. And your super-PAC's right to do this is protected by Citizens United.

[Nye Bevan]

13. I have the same position as the ACLU on this.

I support both Citizens United and full disclosure.

[Deep13]

20. Honestly, that's why I no longer support the ACLU.

Money is not speech.

[GoneOffShore]

15. Interesting that we have one poster who totally support Citizens United.

I'm wondering if they will explain why they support this odious decision.

[Nye Bevan]

16. Here's the ACLU's explanation of why they support it.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

They also filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case.

When people here argue that corporations should have no constitutional rights, I usually point out that in that case, the police could search the offices of DemocraticUnderground LLC for no reason, confiscate the property of DemocraticUnderground LLC without paying compensation, and simply shut down the website altogether. This tends to end that argument.

[GoneOffShore]

17. I know they did - And it's one of the few times when I have not been happy with the ACLU.

Thanks for the link -
And I wasn't sniping at you by the way.

[ProSense]

18. Here's a

good read:

Why the ACLU Is Wrong About 'Citizens United'
http://www.thenation.com/article/166954/why-aclu-wrong-about-citizens-united#

About the Author

Burt Neuborne, the Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties at New York University Law School, is the founding legal director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. He served as national legal director of the ACLU during the Reagan administration, and has represented Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold in litigation over campaign finance reform.