Former FEC Chair explains why the Disclose Act bans speech 2 August, 2010Posted by stoptaxing in federal, President Obama.
add a comment
Bradley A. Smith explains that the Disclose Act bans speech which was legal even before the Supreme Court ruling striking down restrictions.
“You’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections would not be a partisan issue,” Obama said. “[But] the Republican leadership in the Senate is once again using every tactic and every maneuver they can to prevent the DISCLOSE Act from even coming up for an up or down vote.”
That’s false. The Supreme Court decision did not allow foreign corporations or governments to spend money to influence U.S. elections. That’s long been prohibited. The decision does allow U.S. companies with international shareholders to spend money on politics. The First Amendment rights of American shareholders should not be stripped away because of a minimal, non-controlling amount of foreign investors.
President Obama continued spinning, claiming that the bill is simply about disclosure.
“Nobody is saying you can’t run the ads—just make sure that people know who in fact is behind financing these ads,” he said.
Actually, Democrats are saying you can’t run the ads: if you’re a company with a government contract of over $10 million (like more than half of the top 50 U.S. companies) or if you’re a company with more than 20 percent foreign shareholders, you can’t even mention a candidate in an ad for up to a full year before the election. What’s remarkable is that these provisions would prohibit speech that was legal even before the Supreme Court decision. There are no similar prohibitions for unions representing government contractors or unions with foreign membership.
In a Monday conference call with reporters, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, claimed that it was “completely balanced” and “treats unions and corporations the same.”
Schumer was addressing an exemption he removed from the House bill which exempted large financial transfers among union affiliates. Nonetheless, three provisions remain that advantage Democrats’ union allies while restricting business groups: a threshold of disclosure that effectively exempts unions while ensnaring business groups and the aforementioned restrictions on businesses with government contracts and international investment.
Schumer simply removed one of many special deals for unions that was inserted the day before the House vote. This cosmetic change to the DISCLOSE Act does not change the fact that it plays favorites with First Amendment rights and rewrites campaign finance law to advantage the majority party mere months before the midterm elections.
In one of the most egregious aspects of the bill, House Democrats inserted a provision to exempt large, established interest groups such as the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club from the bill’s disclosure provision. This would set up a two-tiered system of First Amendment rights: one standard for the most powerful lobbying organizations and a tougher standard for most other grassroots groups.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Bradley-A-Smith-Democrats-mount-last-ditch-PR-campaign-to-spin-DISCLOSE-Act-99320164.html#ixzz0vPpBsFXE
Levin and a New Isolationism 11 August, 2009Posted by David Anderson in Fair Tax, federal, President Obama, Tax Hikes.
add a comment
Some in the administration and the Senate would put America behind a wall of taxation is the new isolationism. The excuse is trying to prevent people from being able to hide income off shore. The truth is the largest forms of tax evasion are local. What this is doing is locking American investors out of the hottest economies in the world. The Levin bill has the backing of the administration which is hungry for new revenue streams.
While it is advertised as punishing countries that use banking laws to shield anonymous investors. Its sweeping language would punish countries that don’t tax dividends and capital gains like Hong Kong and Singapore. It would be a form of economic imperialism. They are responding by threatening to ban U. S. investment. The damage done to their economic system by losing investment of Americans would be far smaller than the damage of hurting both local and global investment by adopting Democratic tax policy.
If other nations follow suit this could be as damaging as Smoot Harwley Act. If we are to ever have a sustained economic recovery, it has to be based upon sound policy not failed ones.
America needs fundamental tax reform designed by clear thinking, real world, economists. We need policies which encourage American production not flight of production. Levin is right that it starts with the tax code. He couldn’t be more wrong about the solution. Maybe would should take a page from the growing economies instead of closing the book on learning.
5% think President cut the deficit 6 August, 2009Posted by David Anderson in Budget, federal, President Obama.
add a comment
It is not surprising that 71% of people think that President Obama’s policies have increased the deficit. They have. It is not surprising that half of Democrats are not sure or think they had no impact after all you could blame them on the “Bush” recession and say Obama had to spend to fix it. What concerns me are the 5% of people who think that President Obama has cut the deficit which has increased 4 fold on his watch. Why? Because these were registered likely voters not adults. What do you make of these leftists who are that divorced from reality?
Wow, If the 2012 race were today 20 July, 2009Posted by David Anderson in President Obama, Sarah Palin.
1 comment so far
The GOP would be in a horse race with the President. Romney is tied and Palin who polls showed has been hurt by her resignation for now is within single digits. When you live by change….
Obama Update June 09 24 June, 2009Posted by David Anderson in President Obama.
add a comment
The President’s ratio to promises kept to broken is 39 to 6 with over 500 to go. The biggest casualties have been transparency. Overall the ratio seems positive.
add a comment
President Obama seeks the Fiscal Responsibility Mantle about 10 Trillion Dollars late. After multiplying the deficit 4 fold, the President called for a Pay through the nose law. He lectured Congress on fiscal responsibility. In other news, Santa Clause called for dialing back materialism at Christmas.
I thought it would be interesting to see where the deficit was before Democrats passed Paygo in 2007. Republican spend thrifts 150+ billion dollar deficit. Democrat Congress 400 billion dollar deficit. Democrat Congress and President 1.8 Trillion dollar deficit.
Democrats complaining about Republican over spending is like a husband complaining about his wife charging a $1000 on a credit card when he just came back from buying a luxury car and writing a home equity check for a new boat pulled by a debt funded RV.
Isn’t it funny 7 May, 2009Posted by David Anderson in Budget, federal, President Obama.
add a comment
Proposals to Cut 18 billion in earmarks was deemed as no big deal by the President, but cutting 17 billion now is. I am I the only one seeing the humor?
Unfortunately the cuts are mostly from defense including killing jobs to build the F-22. Most of the rest of the cuts are the ones the Congress rejected under the Bush Administration. Meanwhile the administration has proposed skyrocketing the deficit by hundreds of billions a year and trillions over the next 10 years. I hope this is only a start and not a smiley face cynical joke on the taxpayer.
Democrats undermining Obama? 29 April, 2009Posted by David Anderson in federal, President Obama.
1 comment so far
President Obama understood that cutting the tax burden for the working/middle class was an important part of his economic agenda. He also understood that it was a key part to building a political majority. Unfortunately, his Senate budget chairman seems bent on undermining it. On 25 March 2009 the chairman went about undermining the tax cuts after 2010 according to the NY Times. By early April the chairman was press releasing his support for middle class tax release in the budget. By the end of April, he already had set in motion the undermining of the tax cuts by cutting them from future budgets. Combine that with the proposed carbon taxes and the middle class will be hit with terrible costs.
President Clinton lost the Congress in part because the Democrat party went left on social issues and in part because they abandoned his middle class tax cuts. The people elected Republicans who spent 4 years in the wilderness apologizing for the Bush 41 tax increases. The party lost a great opportunity once and it looks like Kent Conrad is poised to repeat history. Wake up Democrats.