[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets

Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start?

"Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work"

test

"Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working"

"Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly"

"Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home"

"The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity"

"How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy"

Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Obama Was Right No Matter How Many Times The Same Article Gets Spammed Into The Sidebar
Source: Democracy 21
URL Source: http://www.democracy21.org/index.as ... 6-BA48-45DF-A5B9-C8988A6C528A}
Published: Jan 30, 2010
Author: None
Post Date: 2010-01-30 00:20:03 by war
Keywords: None
Views: 2370
Comments: 8

The question has been raised about whether the policy to ban corporate contributions and expenditures in federal elections dates back to 1947 or to 1907. It is clear from the history of the law that the policy to ban corporate expenditures originated in 1907.

In 1907, Congress enacted legislation to prohibit corporations from "directly or indirectly" making contributions in federal elections.

In 1947, Congress amended the statute to make clear that the "directly or indirectly" language in the 1907 statute had covered expenditures as well contributions.

The history shows why this is true.

In 1943, Congress extended the 1907 contribution ban on a temporary basis to cover labor unions as well as corporations. But the 1943 law was deemed ineffectual when reports surfaced that unions were circumventing the contribution restrictions in the 1944 elections by making expenditures to support their favored candidates. Thus, in 1947, Congress acted to reaffirm that the 1907 contribution ban had covered expenditures as well, and also to extend the ban to cover unions on a permanent basis.

Senator Robert Taft, the principal sponsor of the 1947 law, explained: "The previous law prohibited any contribution, direct or indirect, in connection with any election." He said that his legislation "only make[s] it clear that an expenditure...is the same as an indirect contribution, which, in [his] opinion, has always been unlawful." 93 CONG. REC. 6594 (1947) (statement of Sen. Taft)

A House Committee report at the time (H.R. REP. NO. 79-2739, at 40 (1946) stated that House Special Committee was "firmly convinced" that the "act prohibiting any corporation or labor organization from making any contribution" "was intended to prohibit such expenditures."

The Supreme Court recognized this point in the CIO case in 1948, when it said that the intent of the Taft-Hartley Act was not to "extend greatly the coverage" of existing law, but rather to restore the law to its original intent. 335 U.S. at 122.

Thus when Congress in 1907 decided to prevent the corrupting influence of direct or indirect corporate contributions in federal election by banning such contributions, it adopted a policy at that time to keep corporate wealth out of our elections, whether in the form of contributions or expenditures.

It was only because the 1907 prohibition was circumvented through direct expenditures in federal campaigns that Congress acted in 1947 to reaffirm and make clear that expenditures were included in the scope of the original 1907 ban.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: war (#0)

You are a faithful Long Island Obama voter.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.

WhiteSands  posted on  2010-01-30   3:26:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: WhiteSands (#1)

Just another example of his insanity. He's not a lawyer, but he knows BETTER than every lawyer quoted on this topic across America.

(laughing)

Even HUFFINGTON POST says Obama was flat out wrong.

If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo....

Badeye  posted on  2010-01-30   8:17:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Badeye, war (#2)

Just another example of his insanity. He's not a lawyer, but he knows BETTER than every lawyer quoted on this topic across America.

Every lawyer????

" 'It is a plausible inference from the court's opinion that [foreign] money can't be restricted,' said Michael Dorf, a Cornell law professor who has backed giving foreigners the right to contribute to U.S. campaigns.

go65  posted on  2010-01-30   10:32:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: go65 (#3)

He predicted that Hillary wouldn't even seek the nomination in 2008...why in the fuck would anyone listen to him anyway?

war  posted on  2010-01-30   11:20:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: go65 (#3) (Edited)

In 1907, Congress enacted legislation to prohibit corporations from "directly or indirectly" making contributions in federal elections.

I can understanbd the GOP's math problem...they ***think*** that by reducing revenues you increase them...so...if they have a problem calculating the difference in time between 1907 andd 2010 I can assure them - and their self proclaimed polyester wearing "independent" (laughing) apologists - that it is, in fact, 103 years...

war  posted on  2010-01-30   11:23:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: war (#4)

Another false statement by my anti groupie.

I 'predicted' Obama would WIN the nomination in 2008...at Liberty Post, in 2004.

I 'predicted' Hillary would LOSE the nomination in January of 2008 to Obama.

I 'predicted' Obama would win the 2008 election cycle in Janury of 2008.

Those last two were at GOPACHY, and my friend magic sent me a half gallon of Crown and a box of fine Cigars, two of which I still have, as a result of a bet on itg,

You've always been an idiot, fraud. and the above are documented in the respective databasis's. Btw, you mocked my prediction about Obama in 04, at LP.

If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo....

Badeye  posted on  2010-01-31   6:54:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: go65 (#3)

Thats pretty fuckin 'thin' GO, but you know that. Like I said, I don't actually blame Obama for this fuck up, I blame his speechwriter and the political 'consultants' to the speechwriter.

If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo....

Badeye  posted on  2010-01-31   7:04:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: WhiteSands (#1)

Where you been, cracker?

Fred Mertz  posted on  2010-03-25   13:42:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com