Repub Josh Hawley introduces bill to limit corporate $ in politics, which in effect, would reverse the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision

[Indus]

I took a lil more time to skim through the bill last night, and yep...Hawley can go fuck himself, as usual. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt on the summary of the bill before reading it, but I should have known better with his shitheaded MAGAt ass.

It's funny how most of us try hard to find a reasonable republican but we can't anymore even if our lives depended on it.

 

[kage69]

Citizens United definitely sucks; money ain't speech and corporations aren't people. It absolutely needs to be repealed. Having said that, Hawley is a liar and a traitor who simply shouldn't be crafting legislation of any variety. Doesn't matter. McConnell will stomp on this little insurrectionist's image rehab project. Big shadow money helping the GQP implement minority rule is one of Mitch's sacred cows. He's not about to let some spry footed pissant tip it.

 

[Drach]

It's funny how most of us try hard to find a reasonable republican but we can't anymore even if our lives depended on it.

Well here is one decent republican...
There are decent people on both sides. The outside fringes, not so much.

 

[woolfe9998]

On the surface, this makes little sense. Hawley is on the far right. So I'm wondering, since Hawley is in the Trump camp, he may have cleared this with Trump beforehand. And if Trump comes out in favor of it, then his cronies in the Senate and House will vote for it.

Trump is heading into an election year with criminal indictments pending, and a civil suit to shut down his business in New York. How might that help him to say, come out in favor of a political reform bill, throw his weight behind it, get it passed, then take all the credit for cleaning up politics (with mostly demn votes). Trump would benefit with swing voters from anything that dispels his image as corrupt. Might seem like a reach when his base is conservative, but he really represents the cultural far right. Opposing efforts to limit corporate money in elections isn't exactly central to their agenda. It's establishment, pro-business conservatives like Mitch who oppose this. If Trump backs it, his base will just go along with it, just like when he told them to like Putin, so they started liking Putin.

I realize I'm thinking way ahead here and speculating, but I don't know. Hawley and this bill? Something doesn't add up.

 

[brycejones]

On the surface, this makes little sense. Hawley is on the far right. So I'm wondering, since Hawley is in the Trump camp, he may have cleared this with Trump beforehand. And if Trump comes out in favor of it, then his cronies in the Senate and House will vote for it.

Trump is heading into an election year with criminal indictments pending, and a civil suit to shut down his business in New York. How might that help him to say, come out in favor of a political reform bill, throw his weight behind it, get it passed, then take all the credit for cleaning up politics (with mostly demn votes). Trump would benefit with swing voters from anything that dispels his image as corrupt. Might seem like a reach when his base is conservative, but he really represents the cultural far right. Opposing efforts to limit corporate money in elections isn't exactly central to their agenda. It's establishment, pro-business conservatives like Mitch who oppose this. If Trump backs it, his base will just go along with it, just like when he told them to like Putin, so they started liking Putin.

I realize I'm thinking way ahead here and speculating, but I don't know. Hawley and this bill? Something doesn't add up.

It all adds up when you look at who the bill targets. It's focused only at publicly traded companies.

 

[Pens1566]

It all adds up when you look at who the bill targets. It's focused only at publicly traded companies.

Correct. It prevents Disney/etc from funding "woke" issues, but lets Harlan Crow keep pumping money into the Clarence/Ginni Thomas' bank accounts.

 

[JEDI]

Correct. It prevents Disney/etc from funding "woke" issues, but lets Harlan Crow keep pumping money into the Clarence/Ginni Thomas' bank accounts.

Then why is McDonnell so against it?

 

[brycejones]

Then why is McDonnell so against it?

Really? Do you really need this explained to you? McConnell could give 2 shits about being "anti-woke" . So why else would he oppose a bill that would cut off political donations from the largest companies in the country?

 

[zinfamous]

Citizens United definitely sucks; money ain't speech and corporations aren't people. It absolutely needs to be repealed. Having said that, Hawley is a liar and a traitor who simply shouldn't be crafting legislation of any variety. Doesn't matter. McConnell will stomp on this little insurrectionist's image rehab project. Big shadow money helping the GQP implement minority rule is one of Mitch's sacred cows. He's not about to let some spry footed pissant tip it.

I mean yeah but, don't think about taking this opportunity to try and inflate Mitch fucking McConnel up in any way as some sort of useful, upstanding human.

never forget that he is the chief cvnt of all humans that ever lived.

...next to grasshopper. Oh, and Reagan. that piece of scumshit.

 

[Drach]

I mean yeah but, don't think about taking this opportunity to try and inflate Mitch fucking McConnel up in any way as some sort of useful, upstanding human.

never forget that he is the chief cvnt of all humans that ever lived.

...next to grasshopper. Oh, and Reagan. that piece of scumshit.

You forgot Newt Gingrich.

 

[cytg111]

Well it seems McConnell has promised to kill it if it ever came so far and publicly within the R ranks named the Senators who wouldnt be there if it wasnt for dark money.

 

[woolfe9998]

Some pertinent information:

Which Party Receives More Corporate Donations? | Quorum

PACs spent record numbers in recent elections. Learn which party received the most donations and which corporate PAC donated the most.

www.quorum.us

What is political 'dark money' — and is it bad? – Center for Public Integrity

By now, you’ve probably heard the phrase “dark money.” Activists use it. Politicians use it. And journalists use it, including here at the Center for Public Integrity. For some people, it’s just another piece of confusing campaign finance jargon. For others, it’s a term of art, with a precise...

publicintegrity.org

Corporate political contributions, which are mostly through super-PAC's rather than direct candidate donations, favor republicans, but only by 55-45. OTOH, if you look at my second link, it discusses dark money. Dark money mainly comes from non-profits formed under 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6), which do not have reporting requirements, favors republicans 8:1.

I'm guessing this bill does nothing about dark money.

But it still doesn't exactly help republicans overall. They still get more corporate money than the dems. And it won't preclude a corporation like Disney from making public statements opposing horrible GOP legislation.

So it still doesn't make sense to me. There's no way Hawley is doing this in the public's interest. There has to be some other angle.

 

[cytg111]

Whatever republican inter-party-dynamics is at play here and even if its doomed in the Senate and even if Hawley is putting this forward in bad faith.... Should dems not jump on this like like big time and be sure to champion it as Hawleys inception in all of mainstream media? There should be parades in the streets and statues raised.

 

[cytg111]

As they say, great minds think alike, Beau knows whats up.

 

[woolfe9998]

As they say, great minds think alike, Beau knows whats up.

Yeah, I like Beau's point about Citizens United, that the founding fathers couldn't possibly have considered corporations to be people, when they even didn't consider all people to be people. I would add that there weren't even that many corporations in existence at the time, like .001% of what there is now. The entire CU decision was ludicrous. But I'm not sure he's right that the current SCOTUS would shoot down this bill. Trump appointed 3 new conservatives to the court, who are well established as social conservatives, voting to overturn Roe v. Wade. But I don't see blocking a bill like this to be central to a socially conservative agenda. Major opposition is rooted in establishment, pro-business conservatives like McConnell or, on the SCOTUS itself, Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion in CU. I think there's a chance some of the new appointees could side with the 3 liberals and uphold it.

The bill itself looks pretty clean. I looked it over. Whatever Hawley's agenda, and I'm sure there is one (I think Hawley is the type who wants to be POTUS some day), this seems like a good bill, and I can't see why the dems shouldn't support it.

The odd thing about this politically is that, while I have just said that social conservatives, who are both Hawley's and Trump's base, would not necessarily object to this bill on substance, it's a bad look for Hawley to propose a bill that is only supported by him and the opposing party. The base hates any GOP pols who join with democrats in any way. Unless Trump is going to support the bill, because the base would support a bill to mine green cheese from the moon if Trump backed it. Trump has not commented yet on the bill, but if he supports it then I'm correct that this is a political ploy to help Trump next year.

Nonetheless, the dems should always support a bill that is good for the country.

 

[Muse]

If true and it has no poison pills, give credit where credit is due. Good bill. 🤷‍♂️

An unpassable bill put forth has an asterisk that reads "for show only."

 

[cytg111]

Yeah, I like Beau's point about Citizens United, that the founding fathers couldn't possibly have considered corporations to be people, when they even didn't consider all people to be people. I would add that there weren't even that many corporations in existence at the time, like .001% of what there is now. The entire CU decision was ludicrous. But I'm not sure he's right that the current SCOTUS would shoot down this bill. Trump appointed 3 new conservatives to the court, who are well established as social conservatives, voting to overturn Roe v. Wade. But I don't see blocking a bill like this to be central to a socially conservative agenda. Major opposition is rooted in establishment, pro-business conservatives like McConnell or, on the SCOTUS itself, Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion in CU. I think there's a chance some of the new appointees could side with the 3 liberals and uphold it.

The bill itself looks pretty clean. I looked it over. Whatever Hawley's agenda, and I'm sure there is one (I think Hawley is the type who wants to be POTUS some day), this seems like a good bill, and I can't see why the dems shouldn't support it.

The odd thing about this politically is that, while I have just said that social conservatives, who are both Hawley's and Trump's base, would not necessarily object to this bill on substance, it's a bad look for Hawley to propose a bill that is only supported by him and the opposing party. The base hates any GOP pols who join with democrats in any way. Unless Trump is going to support the bill, because the base would support a bill to mine green cheese from the moon if Trump backed it. Trump has not commented yet on the bill, but if he supports it then I'm correct that this is a political ploy to help Trump next year.

Nonetheless, the dems should always support a bill that is good for the country.

100% and if for nothing else it’d fuel the friction/flames internal to the gop. Its a win win win.

 

[Moonbeam]

......................

Nonetheless, the dems should always support a bill that is good for the country.

I get your point and know what you mean, but being good for the country is not sufficient. Good isn't good, seems to me if it isn't also good for humanity. There is always the specter of Nationalism.

 

[kage69]

I mean yeah but, don't think about taking this opportunity to try and inflate Mitch fucking McConnel up in any way as some sort of useful, upstanding human.

never forget that he is the chief cvnt of all humans that ever lived.

...next to grasshopper. Oh, and Reagan. that piece of scumshit.

Uhhh, I'm on record here vowing to piss on that man's grave. I'm just commenting on internal party dynamics that have already begun to unfold, and to be clear I still want to see CU tossed like the garbage it is.

The only things I give McConnell credit for are understanding that Putin is a butcher and no ally, and being on the right side of 1/6. Low bars. The rest of his harmful record makes me wish for a blood clot to finish the job, since he won't leave. Worry not my friend.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Cool let’s see it cover dark money donations as well

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah, I like Beau's point about Citizens United, that the founding fathers couldn't possibly have considered corporations to be people, when they even didn't consider all people to be people. I would add that there weren't even that many corporations in existence at the time, like .001% of what there is now. The entire CU decision was ludicrous. But I'm not sure he's right that the current SCOTUS would shoot down this bill. Trump appointed 3 new conservatives to the court, who are well established as social conservatives, voting to overturn Roe v. Wade. But I don't see blocking a bill like this to be central to a socially conservative agenda. Major opposition is rooted in establishment, pro-business conservatives like McConnell or, on the SCOTUS itself, Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion in CU. I think there's a chance some of the new appointees could side with the 3 liberals and uphold it.

The bill itself looks pretty clean. I looked it over. Whatever Hawley's agenda, and I'm sure there is one (I think Hawley is the type who wants to be POTUS some day), this seems like a good bill, and I can't see why the dems shouldn't support it.

The odd thing about this politically is that, while I have just said that social conservatives, who are both Hawley's and Trump's base, would not necessarily object to this bill on substance, it's a bad look for Hawley to propose a bill that is only supported by him and the opposing party. The base hates any GOP pols who join with democrats in any way. Unless Trump is going to support the bill, because the base would support a bill to mine green cheese from the moon if Trump backed it. Trump has not commented yet on the bill, but if he supports it then I'm correct that this is a political ploy to help Trump next year.

Nonetheless, the dems should always support a bill that is good for the country.

Corporations also had to be sunseted in those days. Meaning they could not go on endlessly. I just found out sunsetted or seted in not a word, yet it's used all of the time.

 

[Thump553]

Corporations also had to be sunseted in those days. Meaning they could not go on endlessly. I just found out sunsetted or seted in not a word, yet it's used all of the time.

At the time of the adoption of the US Constitution there were no general corporations in the US (some states allowed incorporation for certain limited businesses). The US legal system essentially adopted prior British court decisions as common law in the US and there was great resistance to the legal validity of corporations both in Britain and in the US. In the 1790s New York became the first to permit general corporations, and they rapidly took off after that.

Frankly I don't know how any country these days could have anything but the most rudimentary agrarian economy without having permanent corporations (or the equivalent). The amount of capital needed to conduct business on anything but a small/moderate local level needs a permanent entity.

But noone ever claimed corporations were real persons, it has always been a legal fiction to treat them as the equivalent of a real person. If the forefathers had wanted corporations to have free speech, etc. they could have easily written that into the Constitution. Instead we have a Supreme Court creating such rights out of their unfettered imagination. Ditto with money equaling speech. I'm sure the absolute majority of the signers of the Constitution would be flabbergasted by the outsize power this Supreme Court has been granting to validify corporate dominance of the US political landscape.