World

Schumer & Van Hollen: Closing Loopholes in Citizens United Ruling

by Maireid Sullivan | February 19, 2010 at 11:02 pm

288 views | 8 Recommendations | 7 comments

New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer and Maryland Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen have submitted new legislation to Congress in an attempt to:

close a loophole which allows foreign nationals to "participate" in US elections via their subsidiaries,
force corporations to disclose their funding and advocacy activities.
prevent government contractors from engaging in such activities.
prevent companies that have not paid back bailout money from making direct advocacy expenditures.

Bill Moyers' Justice at Stake

In his PBS show, The Journal, January 29, 2010, Bill Moyers aired Justice at Stake, a three-way legal analysis of the January 21, 2010 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling on corporate financing of political elections.

Moyers' panelists Monica Youn and Zephyr Teachout said nobody expected the Supreme Court to make a decision on this scale because they were sitting to decide on a much narrower issue.

...there's a really substantial chance that a combination of this and what's happening in the financial sector are really going to lead to a populist revival like we haven't seen for 100 years. But it's going to require left working with right. It's not going to happen if it's just a left wing response, and it's not going to happen if it's just the tea parties.

Lobbyists Take Advantage of Citizens United Ruling

A month after the Citizens United ruling, corporations are considering how to take advantage of their new-found ability to advocate directly for federal candidates, as indicated in a memo drafted by K&L Gates, a top Washington lobbying firm."

Ralph Nader Reviews Citizens United Decision and weights in on the growing debate about who can and cannot fund US electoral candidates and what it means for democracy.

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Caoimhin1

at 00:21 on February 20th, 2010

Great stuff! :)

Uwe Paschen

at 02:59 on February 20th, 2010

And once there was democracy. Back to tax deductible feudalism.

Maireid Sullivan

at 17:24 on February 20th, 2010

No truer words, Uwe.

Democracy is still something We The People want, in our dreams: the original American Dream.

The Power Of Nightmares was broadcast on November 3, 2004 and is still more than relevant today.
"In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares."

Watch the three-part video online here.

Mike Conley 's transcript says it all ~ " Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares.

Hugh Askew

at 03:56 on February 20th, 2010

"...judges are only supposed to decide the particular case in front of them. They're not supposed to say, "Oh, we don't like that particular area of the law. Let's just go out and change that, just because we have the five votes to do so." And I can think of very little more scary for our democracy than a five justice majority that finds itself unconstrained by precedent. That finds itself unconstrained by the case before it. And feels like it can just go out there and pursue its own agenda"

This is seriously a joke, right?

Every major social issue of the day ends up being decided by the Supreme Court.
I am willing to go along with Youn on this, as long as we can UNDO all of the rulings in which the Court decided to undo the then current laws.

Maireid Sullivan

at 17:32 on February 20th, 2010

Indeed, Hugh, and perhaps there is a competent PhD student who has time to analyze the history of "economic" agendas behind those changes in law. The rest of us seem to be so overwhelmed by making a living, and dealing with general distractions and chaos to focus on really important national issues, such as this.