Friday, February 12, 2010

Statists Response to Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Financing

Congressman Alan Grayson from Florida has introduced several pieces of legislation responding to the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign financing. According to the George Soros-funded Secretary of State Project below are interpretations of them.

1. The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.

2. The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.

3.The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.

4. The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.

5. The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.

6. The End the Hijacking of Shareholder Funds Act (H.R. 4487): This bill requires the approval of a majority of a public company’s shareholders for any expenditure by that company to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company’s products or services.

These laws the statists are trying to enact with the backing of George Soros is an answer to the recent Supreme Court Decision on campaign financing. I see none of these laws effect the unions and their contributions.

I disagree with the Supreme Court Decision allowing corporations to contribute to campaigns because some employees or shareholders may not like their choice. Many of these corporations bend with the wind and change who they contribute to. Also, I do not like corporate PACS because some employees or shareholders may not like the selection. By the same token I do not like unions contributing to campaigns for the same reasons; some of their members may not like the selection.

My preference would be for individuals to contribute as much as they want to whoever they want as long as they fully disclose it. Individuals could form a Club with other individuals to pool their money together as long as there is full disclosure on who is in the club and the amount they contribute. It should be individuals making their own choice and not GROUP think, which is what you get with contributions coming from corporations or unions.

Greg Zotta

No comments:

Post a Comment