Showing All 15 Matching Links Found
Tag(s) Selected:  Federal Election Commission
Search:
:
   + Advanced Options        Search Tips        Legend
     


11/16/2011 More Money Can Beat Big Money
Nine senators introduced a resolution early this month that would amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) and Buckley v. Valeo (1976). These two cases had restricted Congress’s power to limit contributions to political campaigns and independent political expenditures, by both individuals and corporations. Under the amendment, Congress and the states would have the power to limit both contributions and independent expenditures. “By limiting the influence of big money in politics,” said one of the senators, Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, “elections can be more about the voters and their voices, not big money donors and their deep pockets. We need to have a campaign finance structure that limits the influence of the special interests and restores confidence in our democracy.” This proposal is just the latest verse in a very tired song. Once again, the answer to the problem of campaign finance is to “just say no.” Limit contributions. Limit independent expenditures. Limit soft money donations. No, no, no. (New York Times)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 11/27/11                   0       6
#1 



11/1/2011 Citizens United Going Down? Democrats Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Ruling
The Supreme Court may treat corporations like people who can spend whatever they want on elections, but the American people don't have to accept it, said Democratic senators who proposed a constitutional amendment Tuesday to retake control of campaign spending. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), doesn't directly address the justices' legal finding that corporations have a right to free speech that was curtailed by election law. Instead, it would add to the Constitution language that says Congress and the states can regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. The amendment would effectively reverse two landmark Supreme Court decisions -- the 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which said spending money in elections is a form of speech, and the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled it unconstitutional to regulate the money spent to influence elections by corporations and unions. (Huffington Post)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 11/8/11                   0       6
#2 



6/6/2011 Gillibrand Announces New Steps in Ongoing Effort to Make Government More Open and Transparent at The Personal Democracy Forum 2011
Co-Sponsors Legislation Requiring Senators to File FEC Reports Online, Will Comply Before Law Passes Calls for All Public Government Documents To Be Posted Online

Speaking at the Personal Democracy Forum 2011 at New York University, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) today announced she is supporting two new efforts in an ongoing effort to make government more transparent and accountable. Senator Gillibrand said she will co-sponsor a proposal in the U.S. Senate which would for the first time require all Senators to file electronic Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports, a practice she will voluntarily comply with beginning the next reporting period. Gillibrand is also co-sponsoring legislation requiring all public government documents be made available online or machine readable. Gillibrand has lead by example in making government more open and transparent, she was the first member of Congress to post her official daily schedule, all earmark requests and personal financial disclosure form on her official website. Senator Gillibrand said, “It is time to bring Congress into the 21st Century. I haven’t been in Washington long, but it doesn’t take long to know that it’s broken. Everyday people are not being heard because too much business is happening behind closed doors. My agenda puts the interests of families before all else by making government more transparent, accountable, and efficient. Citizens have a right to see who is in the pocket of special interests and who is running a real grassroots campaign without delay and access any public government information on their computers or mobile devices. My agenda makes that process fully open by ensuring that transparency keeps up with technology.” (Kirsten Gillibrand)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 6/16/11                   0       7
#3 



2/1/2011 Public Funding of Presidential Elections
Published in August 1996 (updated February 2011) Contents Introduction What is Public Funding? When and How Did it Begin? How Does Public Funding Work? Primary Matching Funds General Election Funding Expenditure Limits for Publicly Funded Candidates Convention Funding What is the FEC's Role? Eligibility for Public Funds Repayments of Public Funds How Can I Support My Candidate? How Can I Obtain Copies of Reports? How Can I Get More Information? (Federal Election Commission)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#4 



1/26/2011 House votes for repeal of public-paid campaigns: Lawmakers say system is broken
Saying it has become an obsolete waste of money, the House on Wednesday voted to end the taxpayer-funded presidential campaign finance system that has fallen out of favor over the past decade as candidates have chosen to ignore it. The bill steps back from the 1970s-era dream of publicly financed campaigns. More than $600 million could be saved over the next decade by ending the system that channels taxpayer dollars to presidential candidates who agree to abide by fundraising and spending limits. Republicans said the 239-160 vote was just a recognition of how broken the system has become, particularly after Barack Obama reversed a campaign pledge and opted out of the primary and general election matching funds in 2008. “It was President Obama who killed it and made a mockery of public financing of campaigns,” said Rep. Aaron Schock, Illinois Republican. Despite his decision to opt out in 2008, Mr. Obama on Tuesday announced that he opposed the Republicans’ bill. He said the system should be fixed rather than ended, and predicted that corruption would grow with the end of publicly financed presidential campaigns. (Washington Times)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#5 



1/24/2011 Left, right gear up for campaign-finance clash before 2012 elections
Liberals and conservatives alike are gearing up for battles over campaign financing rules in anticipation of the 2012 election, which will decide control of the White House and Congress. Liberal groups want to impose disclosure rules on shadowy political advocacy groups that raised and spent tens of millions of dollars in corporate contributions on the 2010 midterm elections. (The Hill)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#6 



1/21/2011 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited—because of the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision, in favor of Citizens United, resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.[2] The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision upheld provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.”[2] An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] McCain–Feingold had previously been weakened, without overruling McConnell, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007). The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties. (Wikipedia)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       2
#7 



1/21/2011 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009–– Decided January 21, 2010
Justice Stevens' dissent: "...The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution...." (US Supreme Court)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#8 



1/10/2011 From the archives: Rahm Emanuel, Freddie Mac and the big bucks years
From Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at mortgage giant and Freddie Mac scandals began during Emanuel's watch by Bob Secter and Andrew Zajac, and The House Rahm Built -- How Chicago's profane, ruthless, savvy operative, remade the Democrats in his image by Naftali Bendavid. Highlights: Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator. One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel-- now chief of staff to President Barack Obama-- who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.... What is less known, however, is how little he apparently did for his money and how he benefited from the kind of cozy ties between Washington and Wall Street that have fueled the nation's current economic mess..... (Chicago Tribune)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 4/2/11                   0       1
#9 



1/1/2011 Campaign finance reform in the United States
is the common term for the political effort in the United States to change the involvement of money in politics, primarily in political campaigns. Although attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867, the first successful attempts nationally to regulate and enforce campaign finance originated in the 1970s. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1972 required candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. It was amended in 1974 with the introduction of statutory limits on contributions, and creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It attempted to restrict the influence of wealthy individuals by limiting individual donations to $1,000 and donations by political action committees (PACs) to $5,000. These specific election donations are known as ‘hard money.’ The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold", after its sponsors, is the most recent major federal law on campaign finance, which revised some of the legal limits on expenditures set in 1974, and prohibited unregulated contributions (commonly referred to as "soft money") to national political parties. ‘Soft money’ also refers to funds spent by independent organizations that do not specifically advocate the election or defeat of candidates, and funds which are not contributed directly to candidate campaigns. In early 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited pursuant to the right of these entities to free speech. (Wikipedia)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#10 



10/13/2010 Campaign finance reform: R.I.P.?
For four decades, advocates for stricter campaign finance rules have been on a long, slow march to make big money in politics less important and more transparent. Now, in 2010, they are seeing the results: Never in modern political history has there been so much secret money gushing into an American election. By Election Day, independent groups will have aired more than $200 million worth of campaign ads using cash that can’t be traced back to its original source, predicts Fred Wertheimer, president of the nonprofit group Democracy 21. "And this is just the beginning," Wertheimer said. "Unless we get some changes here to mitigate this problem, I would expect we will see $500 million or more in 2012." (Politico)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 1/5/11                   0       2
#11 
keywords: 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, American Crossroads, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Brad Smith, Brigham Young University, Campaign Finance Reform, Campaign Legal Center, Center For Competitive Politics, Chris Van Hollen, Citizens United, Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, Craig Holman, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, David Magleby, Democracy 21, Enron, Federal Election Commission, Fred Wertheimer, George W Bush, George Will, Institute For Justice, Jack Abramoff, James Bopp, James Madison Center For Free Speech, John Mccain, John Roberts, Karl Rove, Lynde And Henry Bradley Foundation, Mike Grebe, Public Citizen, Richard Nixon, Russ Feingold, Samuel Alito, Trevor Potter, US Chamber Of Commerce, US Congress, US Supreme Court, United States, Watergate, White House Add New Keyword To Link



5/11/2010 Kagan Argued to Ban Political Pamphlets
The court, in its 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruled against Kagan’s contention that the government can limit political speech by corporations. In a scathing concurrence to the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument. (Newsmax)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/24/10                   0       22
#12 



5/12/2009 Candidate Comparison: Top Contributors 2008 Cycle
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2008 election cycle (Center for Responsive Politics)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 7/29/09                   0       12
#13 



3/2/2009 Contributions by Sector
2008 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission (Federal Election Commission)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 6/16/09                   3       19
#14 



3/4/2008 Al Gore Purchases Carbon Credits From A Company He Himself Owns
Al Gore, self appointed expert on global warming has been purchasing carbon credits in an effort to offset his palatial lifestyle. What he didn't tell us, however, is that the company he is buying the credits from is actually owned by him. Ching, ching... Al Gore tells critics, when criticized for his exhorbinant lifestyle, one that includes mansions, private plane flights and a host of other CO2 producing activities, explains that he is actually living a "carbon neutral" existence. How is this possible you ask? He purchases carbon credits, which are to ensure that CO2 emissions are being reduced elsewhere. As Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset "is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases." What he isn't telling you, however, is that he purchases those carbon credits from Generation Investment Management, a company that is actually partially owned and chaired by Gore himself. (Digital Journal)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/4/09                   4       19
#15 




Showing All 15 Matching Links Found