Comment Last Three
February 12, 2010
Balance of Power---Democrat Style....
Chris Van Hollen and other Democrats do not belief in the balance of power between the three branches of government. They also believe that voters do not have the right to run ads against career politicans. They try to rig elections any way they can--from legislation, using ACORN, CASA de Maryland, unions or the Black Panthers, to redistricting, or any other means to stay in power. They do not believe in individual rights or the power of the people to voice their opinion.
Top Democrats said Thursday they will try to undercut last month's Supreme Court campaign-finance ruling by forcing corporations and unions that want to run political ads to register separate spending accounts, make them disclose how they got money for the ads and guarantee politicians low rates to respond with their own broadcast ads.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat, and Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, also said they're working on a tight deadline and want a bill passed in time to prevent free-wheeling spending from swamping this year's congressional elections.
"Unlike most bills that are introduced in Congress, this one has a deadline for action," said Mr. Schumer, who party leaders tasked to write a bill with Mr. Van Hollen. "If we don't act quickly, the court's ruling will have an immediate and disastrous impact on the 2010 elections."
What does this statement mean? By disastrous impact, does Van Hollen mean that Democrats will lose elections because the American citizens can publish ads telling the truth?
The two lawmakers said corporations, unions and nonprofit groups that want to pay for broadcast political ads should have to register a separate account with the Federal Election Commission to receive funds and pay for ads. All contributions and expenditures to and from the funds would have to be reported.
Some corporations would be banned outright from running ads, including ones in which foreigners have 20 percent ownership or are otherwise demonstrably in control, and any corporations that are taking Wall Street bailout money or receive government contracts. That ban would cover many major technology, defense, communications and scientific research firms.
Is Van Hollen and other Democrats resorting to Soviet and Iranian style politics?
Cleta Mitchell, a campaign-finance lawyer active in conservative causes, said there are problems with the direction the Democrats are headed. She said the Supreme Court has already struck down campaign-finance laws that granted politicians lower ad rates, and she said a blanket ban on federal contractors could run afoul of free-speech protections. "I don't think they could keep somebody from using their own separate money," she said.
In last month's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court held that corporations and unions were entitled to First Amendment protections for political speech. The court held that corporations and unions should not have to form political action committees subject to strict rules, but instead should be free to run political ads paid for from their own general funds. They are still banned from contributing directly to political campaigns.
We need free speech and transparency--not career and corrupt politicians telling us what to do.