Schumer-Van Hollen

[Rocktar]

And here we go, the bill supposed to "fix" the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to spend as much as they like on election campaigns. Well, that is all fine and good and likely something most can support, however, with all bills coming from this Democrat Socialist controlled Congress, there are a lot of other things in it basically to prevent and limit activities, add taxes and allow more governmental control and restriction.

Some of the high points of things I think are bad in it:


Limits employees ability to contribute to PACs and other organizations in some ways.
Government contractors can't conduct any campaigning.
Trade associations and non-profits can't conduct any campaigning using corporate funds.
They greatly broaden the definition of "foreign owned" in the law.
They add large amounts of notification, disclosure and other regulatory BS to the law even if you ARE allowed to conduct campaign activities as a corporation.
Adds to the rules and regulations for broadcasters and media regarding charges and so on for campaign communications.



Here is an article I found on it:

http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&id=6087&newsletter=8

All in all, not a good thing.

[Warriorbird]

Why aren't you hating on the Supreme Court's original decision?

Oh wait...

[Rocktar]

I didn't say I agreed with it, and you can find where I posted elsewhere about it. I am saying that this bill is full of shit that it doesn't need to deal with that decision. Nice try WB but you still FAIL.

[TheEschaton]

I could find fault with all the points you post, but, particularly, why are you against government contractors campaigning? That's a direct conflict of interest.

[Rocktar]

I could find fault with all the points you post, but, particularly, why are you against government contractors campaigning? That's a direct conflict of interest.

If a company contracts out building national park toilets for the government and is owned by a conservative, I fail to see how it would be a conflict of interest to fund a PAC to fight against Second Amendment threats.

It is too broad in coverage, too limiting by it's powers and to me seems targeted to protect those in power as opposed to simply plug an issue with a law.

Want to fix the issue, then simply enact an across the board, single entity donation cap along with an across the board single entity spending cap worded so as to not allow donations to 40 different PACs all funding the same campaign. Then add some disclosure about who owns who for contributions.

[Parkbandit]

With a bill named Schumer-Van Hollen.. it has to be worthless shit.

[radamanthys]

The free market: absence of governmental intervention in business. The recent supreme court ruling allows business free reign to get government to interfere in business. It's a knell to the death of the freely competitive market.

It's funny (read: absurd) that liberals are against the recent supreme court decision, as it's a massive step towards a command economy (a long time ideal of the left) and away from a truly free market economy. And who is surprised that Chuck Schemer (dog that he is) is utilizing this opportunity to extend the stride?

[Warriorbird]

The free market breeds monopolies in much the same way that anarchy breeds government. It is sad that some people still don't grasp this. It's like the whole notion of wanting a free market economy then bawwing for tort reform. They don't really want a free market either.

[TheEschaton]

The recent SCOTUS decision allows business to interfere in government, Rada. Despite any delusions you may have, there will always be a governmental role in business from a practical standpoint, this (wrongly) allows business to unduly influence what that role will be.

[radamanthys]

The recent SCOTUS decision allows business to interfere in government, Rada. Despite any delusions you may have, there will always be a governmental role in business from a practical standpoint, this (wrongly) allows business to unduly influence what that role will be.

That's what I said, asshat.