#McCutcheon v. FEC

[libamericaorg]

NYC Billboard Targeting AOC Is Emblematic Of Big Money In Politics (Video)

NYC Billboard Targeting AOC Is Emblematic Of Big Money In Politics (Video)

Everyone can afford to buy advertising space on billboards in order to spread his or her political views, right?

Everyone can buy political influence, right?

That’s exactly the situation that permitted Texas-based conservative advocacy group, the Job Creators Network (JCN), to partner with CEOs of Home Depot, Pepsi, and Kraft to fund a billboard in New York City’s Times Square attacking Rep. Alex…

[tennesseewatchman-com-news-blog]

Seven years later: Blurred boundaries, more money

Seven years later: Blurred boundaries, more money

  Presidential candidate and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) repeatedly railed against the negative impact of Citizens United v. FEC, handed down seven years ago Saturday. (Robin Buckson/The Detroit News via AP)

Among the inaugural festivities and protests this weekend, spare a thought Saturday for the seventh anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee 

[surejaya]

Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United

Download : Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United More Book at: Zaqist Book

Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United by Zephyr Teachout

When Louis XVI presented Benjamin Franklin with a snuff box encrusted with diamonds and inset with the King's portrait, the gift troubled Americans: it threatened to "corrupt" Franklin by clouding his judgment or altering his attitude toward the French in subtle psychological ways. This broad understanding of political corruption--rooted in ideals of civic virtue--was a driving force at the Constitutional Convention. For two centuries the framers' ideas about corruption flourished in the courts, even in the absence of clear rules governing voters, civil officers, and elected officials. Should a law that was passed by a state legislature be overturned because half of its members were bribed? What kinds of lobbying activity were corrupt, and what kinds were legal? When does an implicit promise count as bribery? In the 1970s the U.S. Supreme Court began to narrow the definition of corruption, and the meaning has since changed dramatically. No case makes that clearer than Citizens United. In 2010, one of the most consequential Court decisions in American political history gave wealthy corporations the right to spend unlimited money to influence elections. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion treated corruption as nothing more than explicit bribery, a narrow conception later echoed by Chief Justice Roberts in deciding McCutcheon v. FEC in 2014. With unlimited spending transforming American politics for the worse, warns Zephyr Teachout, Citizens United and McCutcheon were not just bad law but bad history. If the American experiment in self-government is to have a future, then we must revive the traditional meaning of corruption and embrace an old ideal.

Download : Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United More Book at: Zaqist Book

[mostlysignssomeportents]

33 state Democratic parties launder $26M from millionaires for Hillary #1yrago

The Supreme Court's 2014 McCutcheon v FEC ruling eliminated aggregate caps on individual campaign donations, and this paved the way for the DNC and the Hillary Victory Fund to collaborate with 33 state-level Democratic parties to accept $10,000 donations from the millionaires and billionaires who back Clinton, kicking them back up to Hillary, allowing each couple to donate up to $1.32M to the Clinton campaign.

$26 million was transferred from these state-level warchests to the Hillary Victory Fund. These funds were dispersed to the Hillary Clinton super PACs, like Hillary for America and Forward Hillary. The Hillary Victory Fund is administered by the Clinton Campaign's treasurer, Elizabeth Jones, who has the sole right to direct the funds.

In addition to laundering donations for the super-wealthy in service to the Clinton campaign, the state Democratic parties also appear to be peddling the loyalty of their super-delegates to the campaign, in a quid-pro-quo that directs a portion of Hillary's establishment backer's millions to the cash-strapped state organizations.

https://boingboing.net/2016/04/02/33-state-democratic-parties-la.html

[rolandfontana]

Plaintiffs’ Merits Brief in Maryland Redistricting Case

From Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Brief filed in the Supreme Court yesterday: A State may not inhibit “the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.” McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185, 191 (2014). Given this insuperable principle, … Continue reading → Plaintiffs’ Merits Brief in Maryland Redistricting Case syndicated from https://immigrationattorneyto.wordpress.com/

[citizentruth-blog]

Unprecedented Spending by Outside Groups Already Fueling Trump’s 2020 Bid

Fundraising for Trump's re-election bid in 2020 is already setting records in 2019. (Center for Responsive Politics) Outside groups supporting President Donald Trump’s re-election bid kicked off 2019 with a barrage of spending, an early opening salvo with the 2020 general election still nearly 21 months away. Independent expenditures for multiple hybrid-PACs advocating for Trump’s candidacy totaled over $1.27 million since the start of this year. As outside spending for former President Barack Obama at this time in 2011 only totaled a few hundred thousand dollars, the ongoing push for Trump is an unprecedented blitz in outside spending for an incumbent president. And the three outside spending groups dominating this effort are all linked to the same man. Dan Backer, principal attorney for the law firm political.law, signed off on spending for two of the groups which are clients of his firm: The Committee to Defend the President and the Great America PAC, according to FEC records. The Great America PAC spent $821,280 since the start of this year, with the Committee to Defend the President spending $441,038. Another group, America Fighting Back PAC, which spent $10,000 on television ads, is another client of Backer and lists the same address and the same employee as The Committee to Defend the President. “The Trump-hating left … has worked to defeat this president every day since he got elected,” Backer wrote in an email response to questions regarding the spending push in favor of Trump. “That’s why my clients have worked every day since then to re-elect him and advance his America First Agenda.” Backer played a role in shaping contemporary campaign finance law. He represented the plaintiff in McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court case that ruled unconstitutional the limit on aggregate contributions an individual can make to a political party or a candidate’s campaign committee over two years. Other groups supporting Trump have taken a different approach in reporting expenditures for ads. Groups like “America First Policies” consider their ads to date as “pro-Trump agenda” issue advocacy ads, which do not require disclosure. However Backer said his clients consider their ads as expressly advocating for a candidate and disclose their spending as such. The three outside spending groups affiliated with Backer have pumped substantial sums of money into previous election cycles. The Committee to Defend the President, which was previously named the Stop Hillary PAC, spent $16.2 million over the last three election cycles. The Great America PAC respectively spent $35.6 million. Some of its notable donors include GOP mega-donor Robert Mercer, former Marvel Entertainment CEO Isaac Perlmutter, and Robert McNair, the late owner of the Houston Texans. America Fighting Back PAC, the newest of the three, spent $341,000 in the 2018 midterms. Some of the activities bankrolled by these groups include voter contact online and by phone, gaining access to conservative donors lists, and television advertisements. One of the ads purchased by Great America PAC features Ed Rollins, a former campaign manager for Ronald Reagan. The ad urges viewers to call Congress in support of Trump’s border wall before the Feb. 15 government shutdown deadline. Another ad features Rollins saying: “The Left will pull out all stops to defeat President Trump in 2020” and asks for support of the president. The Committee to Defend the President and Great America PAC are also actively purchasing ads on Facebook. Recent ads asking users to rate Trump’s State of the Union address were overwhelmingly targeted at Florida, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania — states essential to any Trump 2020 victory in the electoral college. These ads ask for the user’s email, which allows the group to build its contact list and identify potential donors. “Every client has its own strategy and message,” Backer said, “and I’m fortunate to work with some very smart clients who (evidently) know how to win.” Read the full article

[society-watch-blog]

【3修正法案】假訊息，政府怎麼管？

文／蔡正皓律師（台大法研所畢、大壯法律事務所律師）

內政部上週發佈新聞稿，分別公告社會秩序維護法、災害防治法與總統副總統選舉罷免法的修法草案，這三部法律的修法草案，其都指向同一個目標：「打擊假訊息。」

「打擊假訊息」這個議題，在今年突然躍起成為非常受到關注的議題。主因大概是今年發生多起因假訊息而釀的不幸事件，例如9月燕子颱風襲擊日本關西後，「中國外交使館積極派車接送中國遊客、但台灣駐日單位卻無作為」的訊息充斥媒體版面，使得駐大阪辦事處承受龐大輿論批評，儘管該則訊息事後被證明是假新聞，但已經造成駐大阪辦事處處長自殺的悲劇。再如今年下半年的九合一公投綁大選，也導致五花八門的資訊在社群媒體之間不斷流竄，其中不乏誤導民眾的謠言。儘管有些民間單位致力於進行闢謠，但效果終究有限，而這些真假難辨的訊息，對於最終選舉和公投結果，亦發揮了相當的作用。

關於「假訊息」到底如何防治的問題，法操過去已經有多篇文章探討，討論這個大哉問的論著也不在少數，而現在政府終於開始要進行修法，本文以下將稍微介紹本次修法草案的內容，並討論其與言論自由之間的關聯與扞格。

言論自由的限制

不免俗地，我們還是稍微回到言論自由可否、如何限制的議題上。之所以大多數法學理論對於限制言論自由一事帶有反感，最主要是立基於言論自由市場和反對獨裁的理由上。

言論自由市場理論下，一個言論或主張的價值和真偽，應該交由大多數視聽者決定，國家和政府不能代替人民決定特定言論有沒有價值。舉個簡單的例子，一部新上映的電影究竟好不好看，應該是公開上映之後，所有觀眾的評價來決定、評估；而不是電影上映之前必須先經政府機關審查，然後某些電影因為「被政府認證是不好看的」，所以就不給上映。換言之，電影好不好看，應該由消費者決定，而不是政府在電影上映前就先幫消費者挑選好。

同樣的道理，套用到所有的言論上亦如是。之所以不能接受政府對言論內容的審查，一方面當然是為了尊重社會上多元的價值觀，更重要之處在於，要避免政府故意壓迫對自己不利的言論，藉管制之名行獨裁之實。

但言論自由的保障歷經多年發展，也發展出許多細膩的標準，並不是所有言論都是一律同等的保障，例如針對仇恨性言論、歧視性言論的，政府就有比較高的管制正當性。另一方面，如果政府管制是針對言論發表的時間、地點、方法，而非直接針對言論內容管制，通常也比較能容忍政府的管制措施。

社會秩序維護法草案

先就適用範圍最廣泛的社會秩序維護法（以下簡稱社維法）來看，事實上社維法第63��第1項第5款已經規定：「散佈謠言，足以影響公共之安寧者，處三日以下拘留或新臺幣三萬元以下罰鍰。」然而，這條規定因為標準不明確，導致在操作上頗為困難，因此內政部公布的草案，將會把這一款規定刪除，並增訂第63-1條專門規範散佈假訊息的行為。

根據內政部新聞稿，新增的法條將會納入假訊息的定義，也就是三要素：故意、虛假、危害。也就是說，必須是明知為假訊息，但仍然將假訊息散佈出去，同時造成公眾畏懼或恐慌的危害，才會納入本條的處罰範圍內。但除此之外，本條的要件不止於此，行為人還必須有「擾亂社會秩序」的積極意圖。

這就帶來幾個問題，首先，一旦加入了「擾亂社會的意圖」這個要件，本條的適用範圍就會大打折扣。畢竟，許多假訊息的傳遞，並不是因為發布者有擾亂社會的意圖，例如今年大選期間，到處流竄的各種污名化同性戀者的假訊息，發佈者可能不只沒有擾亂社會的意圖，反而相信他們散播這些資訊是為了「導正社會風氣」，則這種行為在社維法下又應該如何評價呢？

隨之而來的，社維法的主管機關是警察機關，也就是說，具體個案的認定是在警察手中。沒有司法的嚴謹程序，警察要如何判斷散佈謠言者的意圖？會不會演變成警察濫權，或是警察為免爭議，索性完全不碰牽涉到假訊息的相關案件？都是令人擔憂的。

災害防救法草案

根據內政部新聞稿，將會針對災害防救法第41條提出修法草案，規定如果針對通報災害的不實訊息，或以任何方式散佈，足以對公眾或他人產生損害，或有危害安全之虞，甚至因而導致人員死傷者，可處無期徒刑或5年以上有期徒刑、拘役或100萬元以下罰金。

本條修法草案最引人注目的，就是刑度。可以想像，內政部修法的想法是，面對隨時可能導致人員死傷的災害下，任何虛假訊息的傳遞都可能對生命安全造成危害，其惡害遠超出一般情形下的假訊息，因此有必要予以重罰。

但耐人尋味的是，現行災害防救法下，並沒有自己的刑罰規範，只有針對災害之際趁火打劫（偷竊、詐欺、強盜等財產犯罪均包含在內）的行為，應加重其刑的規定。草案第41條可能會成為災害防救法唯一一條刑罰罰則，卻只針對散步災害假訊息的行為。至於其他妨害救災的行為，災害防救法草案則付之闕如，只能回歸刑法第182條。然而刑法第182條規定的刑罰，最重只有到3年有期徒刑。這就形成一個很失衡的規範體系：以暴力或其他物理力妨礙救災，至多為3年有期徒刑，遠不及釋放假消息的處罰，顯然可能形成規範漏洞。

總統副總統選舉罷免法草案

相較於前兩者，總統副總統選舉罷免法（以下簡稱總統選罷法）草案的修正部分較多，其中包括配合公職人員選舉罷免法，廢除「罷免不得宣傳」等不合理規定。而且總統選罷法針對假訊息規範的修法，也不像前兩者那樣直接，而是著眼於廣告刊播與經費來源。

總統選罷法針對假訊息的規範，分成兩個方向：廣告透明化與經費來源限制。前者部分，現行總統選罷法已經在第47條規定大眾傳播媒體在刊登競選廣告時，必須載明政黨與候選人姓名，草案則更進一步，要求一併公開出資者，讓選民有更多標準評估競選廣告的可信度。後者部分，則是為了避免境外勢力介入選舉，而要求大眾傳播媒體不可以接受外國、中國或港、澳人士或團體委託刊登選舉、罷免廣告。

這些規範就不是針對言論的內容，而是似乎是從言論發表的時間、地點、方式著手管制。但究竟其所限制的，是否確實是標準比較寬鬆的時間、地點、方式？也值得探討。相較之下，美國近幾年的聯邦最高法院判決，諸如2010年的Citizen United v. FEC、2014年的McCutcheon v. FEC等案件，均傾向認定人民資助廣告或捐政治獻金以支持政治人物，是屬於言論自由的行使，國家不能加諸太多限制。

當然，美國聯邦最高法院這樣的趨勢，也在國內引發不少批評。反對者就認為這種見解，將會助長貪腐、大幅影響輿論與媒體的公正性，從而侵蝕民主的基礎。內政部修法的基本思考，大約也是循著這條思路，尤其當選舉資金是來自國外，自然更有可能影響國內選情，而有更高的限制必要性。

結語

但無論如何，政府的法律無法完全消弭假訊息的盛行，尤其在網際網路以及社群媒體的崛起下，這種假訊息更是防不勝防，甚至連來源都無法追蹤。因此我們也無法完全仰賴政府對假訊息的打擊措施，而是在平常，就要培養起自己分辨訊息真偽的能力，才能避免自己成為散播假訊息的幫兇。

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

【Yahoo論壇】係網友、專家的意見交流平台，文章僅反映作者意見，不代表Yahoo奇摩立場 >>> 投稿去

[populistmedia]

Are Kavanaugh Attacks Attempts To Protect Hillary And Democrats From Lawsuit?

Monday, The Committee To Defend The President posted a reminder about their lawsuit against Hillary Clinton.  A deeper dive into the article posted was a reminder of the power of the Supreme Court's findings, upon the Democrat Party as a fundraising machine. DEEPER DIVE It begs the question if the Democrats plot to overthrow Conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh, is really a plot to protect Hillary Clinton, the DNC and their massive fundraising machines. THE ALLEGED CRIME Reported by The Federalist, April 2017:

Bombshell: FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million

The mainstream media took no notice of a federal court filing that exposes a $84 million money-laundering conspiracy Democrats executed during the 2016 presidential election. ... The Supreme Court Made It Clear This Is Illegal The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law. Here’s how the court laid it out: “ donor gives a $500,000 check to a joint fundraising committee composed of a candidate, a national party committee, and most of the party’s state party committees. The committees divide up the money so that each one receives the maximum contribution permissible under the base limits, but then each transfers its allocated portion to the same single committee. That committee uses the money for coordinated expenditures on behalf of a particular candidate.” The Supreme Court then declared: “Lest there be any confusion, a joint fundraising committee is simply a mechanism for individual committees to raise funds collectively, not to circumvent base limits or earmarking rules. Under no circumstances may a contribution to a joint fundraising committee result in an allocation that exceeds the contribution limits applicable to its constituent parts; the committee is in fact required to return any excess funds to the contributor.” And “the earmarking provision prohibits an individual from directing funds ‘through an intermediary or conduit to a particular candidate.” This “scenario could not succeed,” the Supreme Court explained, “without assuming that nearly 50 separate party committees would engage in a transparent violation of the earmarking rules (and that they would not be caught if they did).” Caught Clinton was. Yet the FEC failed to act on Backer’s complaint, even though federal law authorizes any person to file “a complaint with the FEC alleging a violation of federal campaign finance law.” READ THE LAWSUIT FEC REFUSES TO FOLLOW THAT SUPREME COURT RULING Upon receipt of Backer’s complaint, the FEC was required to notify those accused of violating federal law of the charges. Then the commissioners were required to determine whether there was “reason to believe” a violation occurred. Following a finding by four FEC commissioners that there was “reason to believe” a violation has occurred, the FEC must investigate the complaint. Last week Backer turned to federal court, seeking to force the FEC to fulfill its statutory duty. But in this case, the FEC did nothing, other than pressumably notify the DNC and Clinton of the charges. Read More https://twitter.com/TheHwCon/status/1046186121821007872 LATEST ON KAVANAUGH EFFECT ON MIDTERMS: https://www.facebook.com/CommitteeToDefendThePresident/videos/471631346676409/ Read the full article

[democratsunited-blog]

Kansas Democratic Party can't account for $900,000 from Clinton campaign fund - News - The Topeka Capital-Journal

https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=3290

Kansas Democratic Party can't account for $900,000 from Clinton campaign fund - News - The Topeka Capital-Journal

Federal campaign finance reports of the Kansas Democratic Party for the 2016 election cycle don’t account for $900,000 of the $2.4 million transferred from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s fundraising operation to the state party before funneled to the Democratic National Committee.

Documents submitted to the Federal Elections Commission by the Hillary Victory Fund recorded 10 transactions from August to November 2016 that resulted in deposits of $2.46 million into accounts of the Kansas Democratic Party. State Democratic Party reports showed receipt of $1.56 million and recorded transfers of that amount to the DNC.

An attorney with a pro-Donald Trump organization challenging legality of the Clinton cash transfers to 32 state Democratic parties said the Victory Fund’s reporting indicated $900,000 was shifted to the state party on Oct. 6, 2016. The state party didn’t report receiving that amount nor transferring it to the DNC, yet the DNC acknowledged accepting $900,000 from the Kansas Democratic Party on Oct. 6, 2016.

Ethan Corson, executive director of the state Democratic Party, said he wasn’t certain why the party’s filing with the FEC didn’t match accounting of the Hillary Victory Fund.

He said the state party would complete an audit of its finances during the 2016 election cycle and file amendments with the FEC if necessary.

“We’ve been trying to diligently go back,” said Corson, the party’s executive director since August. “We were in this process anyway when the Hillary Victory Fund came up.”

The discrepancy emerged after the Committee to Defend the President, a super PAC supportive of President Trump, asked the FEC to determine whether the Clinton campaign improperly used the Hillary Victory Fund to raise money from large donors through collaboration with dozens of state Democratic Party organizations and the DNC.

Dan Backer, an attorney with the Committee to Defend the President, which was formerly called the Stop Hillary PAC, filed the FEC complaint in December 2017 alleging an “unprecedented, massive, nationwide multimillion-dollar conspiracy.”

Backer alleged in an interview that 32 state Democratic parties didn’t have meaningful custody of the money channeled through those state organizations by the Clinton Victory Fund. He asserted the state organizations served to paper the funds back to the DNC, where it was invested in the Clinton campaign. The tactic enabled wealthy donors to circumvent individual contribution limits in support of Clinton’s campaign, Backer said.

“This is just wrong,” Backer said. “It’s an $84 million money laundering scandal.”

He filed a lawsuit against the FEC in Washington, D.C., to compel the election agency to investigate Clinton’s fundraising activities.

While Backer described as illegal the Clinton campaign’s transactions with state party organizations and the DNC, he expressed no opinion about the Trump campaign doing business in the same manner but with fewer state parties than Clinton.

Backer played a key role in placing the McCutcheon v. FEC case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case produced a 5-4 decision in 2014 holding that limits on contributions by an individual over a two-year period to a national party or federal candidate committee were unconstitutional. The decision expanded loopholes in campaign law and opened the door wider to layered fundraising operations by presidential candidates. 

Corson said the Kansas Democratic Party and other state parties participated in the joint fundraising agreement with the Hillary Victory Fund “because it helped strengthen our state party apparatus, along with that of the Democratic National Committee.”

In May, an official for the Maine Democratic Party offered Maine Public Radio a statement that used the exact same wording. FEC documents indicated the Hillary Victory Fund sent $3 million to the Maine Democratic Party.

“Such agreements are legally required under campaign finance law as a way to ensure transparency if any committees want to raise money jointly,” Corson said.

Read full story here

[libamericaorg]

Get Ready--The Koch Brothers Are Prepared To Dump Record Sums Into 2018 Mid-Term Elections

Get Ready–The Koch Brothers Are Prepared To Dump Record Sums Into 2018 Mid-Term Elections

Know anyone who still thinks elections don’t matter?

If so, ask that person why right-wing billionaires like the notorious Koch brothers are prepared to spend up to $400 million on upcoming mid-term congressional races, 60 percent more than on the 2016 election.

Those familiar with Charles and David Koch are aware they are benefactors for libertarian and conservative causes, especially climate…

[tennesseewatchman-com-news-blog]

Grant to Trump: How court cases influenced campaign finance

Grant to Trump: How court cases influenced campaign finance

WASHINGTON, DC – People wait in line outside of the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Olivier Douliery/Getty Images)

When Ulysses S. Grant ran for president in 1868, he benefited from large contributions from wealthy entrepreneurs, such as railroad tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt. “Never before was a candidate placed under such…

[eekispyykes]

The First 15 points of The New Establishment Generation.

The New Establishment Generation.

1.No judge may serve more than 10 years in the supreme court.All US Supreme court opinions are subject to academic review. Antonin Scalia has voiced criticism of law school electives when in fact the threat he feels from young law students applying theory early reduces the grandiosity he makes presenting law in limited scopes, narrow glances and conservative judicial activism(ie McCutcheon v FEC, Citizens United v FEC)

2.Prior to Supreme Court opinions, Law schools are requested to submit faculty per curiam opinions and Appeals/District Courts likewise encouraged to present Opinion on cases. Intrajudicial review has a duty to raise concensus by which State and US Supreme Court cannot venture outside expected precedents lower courts would be promptly overturned for exercising.

3.Journalists reviewing/recycling the term ' me generation”, “selfie generation' or any similar accusation of narcissism are hereby denounced as reputable sources. The outcome of these misguiding trope labels applied to young people result in a) feelings of obligation to serve in unofficial wars, 2) to neglect their owed duty to call for term limits for a congress of aging narcissists representing only themselves and their re election lobby's interest.

4.Term Limits are now a litmus and legally binding contract for any candidate seeking office.No thanks to a conservative activist supreme court; no matter their official leans, the 22nd Amendment sufficiently provided for a norm of limitations for sitting Legislators and White House officials. We see this ageism in persons like Elizabeth Porter who reduced the gun dialog down to 'do your homework and don't bother me”. The Congresspersons took a sworn oath to protect the people from threats foreign and domestic and they are failing.By lack of term limits we see arrogance reeking out of the doors of our legislative houses. The days great orators by their own personal camera are not the days best reformers.  The first lobbyist is the incumbent themselves.

I’m suggesting the protective measures of two terms in each house of congress, a total of 26 years total service, a lowering of voting age to 15, a lowering of congress access age to 19. It is by a protective notion of wanting candidates that will willfully vacate office to do other things these measures are such. Also, that candidates are more aligned to education interests and not lobby interests. Long term donations have a strong association to candidate influence and so the appearance of corruption without term limits has been a neglected artifact in the Supreme Court evaluation. 

House term 9 yrs, Senate term 6yrs. The two year cycle is a money drain and congress must be held to their own performance stats.

5.In as long as NRA will turn a blind eye to circumvention of federal law , aspire slavery  and through their evangelical base distort gun rights a christian/protestant policy, the NRA and its industry will be considered a baseless faction disservicing the 2nd amendment more than representing it. They’re white privilege mongers. This does not stand to dismiss concealed carry and if assault weapons were ever to be legal, additional licensing was necessary.

6.The republican party is found negligent and culpable for the costs of all gun deaths relating from the expiration of the assault weapons ban. We additionally call for police harboring and collaborating false statements to exonerate murderers behind a badge to be charged for accessory to murder and obstruction of justice.

7.The killing of a man need no greater than semi automatic capability in the reason of self defense. All mechanisms of automatic fire, or greater expiring of ammunition than one trigger pull per bullet is prohibited . Semi automatic weapons have been on the market for awhile , including rifles. The recent choice to appeal a military style carbine has been highly specialized to illegal modifications even though military recruits are also trained only for single round shooting. Automatic and modified semiautomatic weapons are frivolity measures explicitly unlike purposes of self defense.

8. No legitimate christian could ever have blessed AR-15s in the presence of Jesus under his teachings. The militancy of white radicalized gun idolators raises a cult alert about conservative politics and delusional expressions more similar to Sharia law than unlike. When a shooter entered Youtube headquarters in what is presumed confrontation of banning DIY gun videos the reality of fringe NRA militancy groups was manifested. If the political link is factual it is but a wider example of conservatives being unfit to have guns due to their death threat tendencies for political reasons. They’re taking as much offense to gun control as extreme Muslims to heckling Mohammed is an absolute parallel. The conservative message divides themselves from willing christian martyrs. The narrow gate in christianity is the only gate; to school christian post on Trumps adulterous exemptions.

9.Money is not speech. However  in the time that it continues to be so , money cannot be divided from speech. Stock ownership is a political and business association  that need not have divided its influence from the stock itself. In the creation  of PACs and unfortunately then sPACS, transparency was decreased as for stock holders being aware what funding was going to political purposes. Goldman Sachs has just been called upon by its shareholders to release its lobbying budget.. Unitarian Universalist Association representing 1000 religion organizations seems to be proving that when a company is allowed to perform corporate political speech, it doesn't see its own association to its shareholders to be a sufficient  basis of representing shared interest. Corporate speech is not entitled freedom from, or anonymous association.

10.The first six points are the focus of for debate.

11.A fetus is inert property of the mother up to birth and only until a successful birth is a fetus actually assured survival noting birth injuries like cerebral palsy, erbs palsy , ischemia. There is no creationist providence to its opposition to abortion due to first :a) birth -beginning-life is the official start of life in creationism  b)only since 1910 have premature birth babies been consistently viable. Christianity is not a rabbinical reform religion . c) the antiabortion lobby function as a female harassment lobby posturing only against nonrepublicans. d) the creationist republican lobby does not support life for it finds healthcare more appealing as a profit agenda, not a social well-being agenda. e) the creationist republican lobby doesn't respect life in its pollution and deregulation policies that allow industry to spoil water sources and poorly dispose of wastes. f) the republican creationist agenda doesn't support life because “texas” (business regulation absence).

12.No state is legitimately entitled to hold closed primaries for they feature only the attention of republicans and democrats. Ballot access has been largely inhibiting to any additional parties where money , not policy, is the limiting feature in the market place of ideas. Elections need not only be reformed but assuring the end of the monopoly by the democrat-republican trust. It's really a shame the country United States broke from; England , is doing better for Democracy than this country is. For a country of 65 million people, they have 12 parties. By that ratio , there should be 58 accessible and electable parties. We define the republican and democrat umbrellas of thought too large to be serviced, too profitable to be effectively translated to reasonable public interest, and too spent on protecting the legitimacy of their antipopulist behaviors.

13. We redact Congress's constitutional right to manage its order and affairs and issue a need of a New Constitutional convention recognizing that government's enabled to organize themselves without term limits will become corrupt.    

14. We announce a retirement of the American republic flag and pledge for expectation of even monotheism and a loyal appeasement to the wealthy to be unconstitutional division from representation. Instead a new flag and pledge steering away from eurocentrism and white creationist racism; assuring a “Liberal Democracy” system will be drafted.

15.  Single payer healthcare shall be the policy in that congress’s role to regulate and cost contain have failed by all other measures. Democrats individually are damned for extending an olive branch to the republican party during the healthcare debate. Managed care didn’t manage and its certainly not an adequate system to run government either. The airfare alone is reckless. Net Neutrality is guaranteed and synonymous in protecting the market place of ideas.

M Bench

[shynudecollector]

SOURCE: Hillary Clinton's Campaign Has Been Accused Of Running A Corrupt Money Scheme !! Backer wrote: HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums. Loophole or highly illegal? The Washington Post, an overtly progressive publication known to idolize Clinton, suggested that her campaign 'may have simply taken advantage of loopholes in campaign finance law - loopholes expanded after a Supreme Court by the lawyer who filed the new complaint.' In other words, Republicans created this mess, according to the Post, and Clinton didn't actually break any laws. In 2013, GOP donor Shaun McCutcheon successfully sued to remove FEC regulations which limited individual donations to campaigns and parties, reversing a 40-year-old ban on how much money a single donor can give away in total. A donor could now give to an unlimited number of candidates and party committees, though the total sum to each was still capped. Defenders of the campaign limits argued that donors could now simply move around the $2,700 maximum donation applied to individual candidates by routing money through state party coffers. Justice Samuel Alito was unconvinced: How realistic is this? How realistic is it that all of the state party committees, for example, are going to get money and they're all going to transfer it to one candidate? The Clinton campaign must have been present in the courtroom during Alito's statement, because this worst case scenario was adopted as a fundraising strategy for the HVF. However, Democrats were not simply taking advantage of a loophole by abusing a poorly conceived law - they were breaking it. Backer, who was a part of the McCutcheon case which is credited with opening up the 'loophole' that empowered the Clinton laundering scheme, argues that the law is clear: In McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 1455 (2014), the Supreme Court itself recognized this precise arrangement would flatly violate federal earmarking restrictions, ... though the court dismissed the possibility of such a flagrantly illegal scheme as 'unlikely' to occur. Not even the Supreme Court could anticipate the extent to which the Democratic Party and its elite, wealthy donor class would commit willful felonies in a futile attempt to facilitate Clinton's election. Party of the rich As Backer poignantly addressed in his court complaint, Democrats appear to have initiated this illegal endeavor to maximize contributions from wealthy donors. Yet, if the GOP is the ' party of the rich, ' why didn't the Trump campaign begin a similar fundraising conspiracy to capitalize on the results of their own donor's lawsuit? The truth is that while the middle class is shrinking, Democrats are increasingly finding themselves as the beneficiaries of the bourgeoisie. A report from Investor's Business Daily illustrates this relationship by showing that from 1989 to 2014 wealthy donors gave Democrats $1.15 billion, while Republicans received just $736 million from the same demographic. Among the top 10 donors to both parties, Democrat donors outspend their Republican counterparts by two to one. Of course American billionaires are in love with the left. When Democrats controlled Congress and occupied the White House, an inequitable 95 percent of income gains went to the top one percent of earners. While most Democrats appear to be ignoring the latest Clinton scandal, wealthy liberals are certainly watching the courts closely to see how events develop. As Backer notes, these same wealthy donors were a party to the laundering scheme. ' Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton's campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election - 100 times larger than allowed,' Backer claims. This makes the entire operation a conspiracy potentially involving hundreds of wealthy Americans - and it's time that Clinton is held accountable for it. Videos at SACC can use copyrighted content based on fair use fair use laws (https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright / ...) and (http://ift.tt/UGhVpp) Any violation of policy, community guidelines, copyright law or business cooperation please comment on the video, send us a message, or contact directly by mail: saccnews@gmail.com Support us by SUBSCRIBE here: https://goo.gl/9Coqny by SACC - BREAKING NEWS TODAY

[notmypresidenttrump]

#Repost @daphneposh ・・・ New Study: Corporations That Put Money Into Politics Get Trillions From the Government In their majority opinion for Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court wrote that corporate spending to influence elections would not “give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Four years later, a comprehensive new studyfrom The Sunlight Foundation is challenging that assumption. Researchers working on the year-long investigation looked at campaign contributions and lobbying costs for 200 of America’s largest corporations between 2007-20012, a period defined by a massive increase in outside political spending coinciding with the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions So, what did they find?  During the 6 years covered by the study, the top 200 politically active corporations spent a total of $5.8 billion dollars on federal lobbying ($5.1 billion) and campaign contributions ($597 million). Those are awfully big numbers and they seem even larger when you realize that while the 200 corporations represent just 1% of all lobbying clients, their spending accounted for a whopping 26% of total lobbying expenditures. What did they get out of it? This is where things get really interesting; according to the report, all of that spending “pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion in federal business and support.” To put that number in perspective, it’s roughly 2/3rds of $6.5 trillion individual tax-payers paid to the Treasury during the same period. In other words, the government gave 200 corporations, who just happen to be major political donors, the equivalent of 4 years worth of individual tax revenue over this 6 year period. For every dollar spent influencing politics, the 200 corporations were rewarded with an average of $760 dollars from the government in the form of contracts, tax breaks, or other financial perks. 102 of the corporations in the study received financial benefits from the federal government worth 10 times or more than what they invested in lobbyists and political donations and 29 received 1,000 times or more. If that’s not enough to demonstrate at least “an appearance of corruption

[the405media]

Shaun McCutcheon / Elbert Guillory - The Tami Jackson Show - 7PM PT

Shaun McCutcheon / Elbert Guillory – The Tami Jackson Show – 7PM PT

[yendifplayer type=audio mp3=http://s2.radioboss.fm:8424/stream]   My first guest on the Tami Jackson Show* tonight will be Shaun McCutcheon. Shaun McCutcheon was the plaintiff in McCutcheon v. FEC landmark free speech SCOTUS case. On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC that struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a…

[citizentruth-blog]

Unprecedented Spending by Outside Groups Already Fueling Trump’s 2020 Bid

Fundraising for Trump's re-election bid in 2020 is already setting records in 2019. (Center for Responsive Politics) Outside groups supporting President Donald Trump’s re-election bid kicked off 2019 with a barrage of spending, an early opening salvo with the 2020 general election still nearly 21 months away. Independent expenditures for multiple hybrid-PACs advocating for Trump’s candidacy totaled over $1.27 million since the start of this year. As outside spending for former President Barack Obama at this time in 2011 only totaled a few hundred thousand dollars, the ongoing push for Trump is an unprecedented blitz in outside spending for an incumbent president. And the three outside spending groups dominating this effort are all linked to the same man. Dan Backer, principal attorney for the law firm political.law, signed off on spending for two of the groups which are clients of his firm: The Committee to Defend the President and the Great America PAC, according to FEC records. The Great America PAC spent $821,280 since the start of this year, with the Committee to Defend the President spending $441,038. Another group, America Fighting Back PAC, which spent $10,000 on television ads, is another client of Backer and lists the same address and the same employee as The Committee to Defend the President. “The Trump-hating left … has worked to defeat this president every day since he got elected,” Backer wrote in an email response to questions regarding the spending push in favor of Trump. “That’s why my clients have worked every day since then to re-elect him and advance his America First Agenda.” Backer played a role in shaping contemporary campaign finance law. He represented the plaintiff in McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court case that ruled unconstitutional the limit on aggregate contributions an individual can make to a political party or a candidate’s campaign committee over two years. Other groups supporting Trump have taken a different approach in reporting expenditures for ads. Groups like “America First Policies” consider their ads to date as “pro-Trump agenda” issue advocacy ads, which do not require disclosure. However Backer said his clients consider their ads as expressly advocating for a candidate and disclose their spending as such. The three outside spending groups affiliated with Backer have pumped substantial sums of money into previous election cycles. The Committee to Defend the President, which was previously named the Stop Hillary PAC, spent $16.2 million over the last three election cycles. The Great America PAC respectively spent $35.6 million. Some of its notable donors include GOP mega-donor Robert Mercer, former Marvel Entertainment CEO Isaac Perlmutter, and Robert McNair, the late owner of the Houston Texans. America Fighting Back PAC, the newest of the three, spent $341,000 in the 2018 midterms. Some of the activities bankrolled by these groups include voter contact online and by phone, gaining access to conservative donors lists, and television advertisements. One of the ads purchased by Great America PAC features Ed Rollins, a former campaign manager for Ronald Reagan. The ad urges viewers to call Congress in support of Trump’s border wall before the Feb. 15 government shutdown deadline. Another ad features Rollins saying: “The Left will pull out all stops to defeat President Trump in 2020” and asks for support of the president. The Committee to Defend the President and Great America PAC are also actively purchasing ads on Facebook. Recent ads asking users to rate Trump’s State of the Union address were overwhelmingly targeted at Florida, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania — states essential to any Trump 2020 victory in the electoral college. These ads ask for the user’s email, which allows the group to build its contact list and identify potential donors. “Every client has its own strategy and message,” Backer said, “and I’m fortunate to work with some very smart clients who (evidently) know how to win.” Read the full article