Alan Grayson Introduces Bills To Fight Corporate Money In Politics

Anticipating a Supreme Court decision that could free corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) introduced five bills on Wednesday to choke off the expected flood of corporate cash.

"We are facing a potential threat to our democracy," Grayson said in an interview with HuffPost. "Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means the government is up for sale and that the law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable."

At issue in the Supreme Court case is whether the government can limit corporate spending during presidential and congressional campaigns. The case is pitting Citizens United, a conservative group, against the Federal Election Commission. The FEC banned ads for Citizens United's film bashing Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season.

Grayson introduced a handful of bills on Wednesday -- the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act, the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act, the End Political Kickbacks Act, and two other measures.

The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act would impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act would require public companies to report what they spend to influence public opinion on any matter other than the promotion of their goods and services. The End Political Kickbacks Act would restrict political contributions by government contractors.

The other measures would apply antitrust regulations to political committees and bar corporations from securities exchanges unless the corporation is certified in compliance with election law.

"This case is basically about an effort to get around that. Citizens United took corporate money and tried to influence an election," said Lisa Gilbert of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "These are all pieces of good policy. I hope they draw attention to the potential frightening implications of Citizens United."

ABCNews reported on Wednesday that Democratic leadership is hard at work on a legislative response to the Supreme Court's expected ruling. Grayson told HuffPost that he had consulted with leadership before launching his preemptive strike.

Jeff Patch, a spokesman for the Center for Competitive Politics, an organization that advocates for lifting campaign finance restrictions, said Grayson's bills were too focused on corporate spending. "These are totally targeted at corporations, but Citizens United is widely believed to affect corporations and unions and nonprofits equally."

Grayson disagreed. "One year's profit for Exxon is greater than the entire political expenditure of all unions put together," he said.

Grayson added that he wanted to send the message that people are paying attention to the Supreme Court.

"This issue transcends the usual political arguments. I don't think the teabaggers would be very happy if our government was bought and paid for by a huge national corporation," he said.

The Supreme Court's ruling, which has been expected for months, could come as soon as Jan. 20.

Comments

[Lin96]

01:26 AM on 02/15/2010

Part 2 of Lin 96
Corporations, banks, and Wall Street are likened to addicts. The more they have the more they want. They will do anything for the almighty buck. They wrote the book on what's enough and....it's never enough. Until greed and selfishness are eliminated, we will never change the economics of this country. The financiers do not care about the country. They only care about what they can take from it. And....their children are raised like royalty and are not worried about their country because they are trained to be selfish and self-serving. So, until we stop addicts from running this country, we are weakened and feel no hope. The money these men are acquiring over their lifetimes will be given to their kids to spend and as they will and not have to worry about contributing to humanity. If you've seen any of these kids on television, you would see that they are spoilded brats who are only interested in partying, buying things and their own selfish needs. How much money can one spend in his lifetime and we're left with a generation of kids who are clueless, selfish, and have no interest in anything but themselves. Addicts are breeding adicts. The real fiber of this country is the middle class and it is being destroyed. The goal seems to be two classes of people. The very rich and the very poor. It didn't work in the dark ages and it won't work now.

[Lin96]

01:23 AM on 02/15/2010

We need term limits and campaign finance reform. Let's make this a real run for office giving each candidate the same exact amount of money, and let's see who can do the best campaign with the money they have, and without the help of corporations, lobbyist, and all special interest groups. We need to allow ALL candidates to participate in the debates, and not just the Republicans and Democrats.
We need to clean house and get rid of all the riff raff and replace them with people who are jazzed to restore this country to what it once was. "The party of no" makes every effort to stop any progress at all, and it is the American people who suffer everyday because the "party of no" will only participate if they are in control.
We have more men than women in the Congress and these men have everything to say about a woman's reproductory system. They are determining what a woman should do with her body. I want the same to apply to men. I would like men to be responsible for unwanted pregnancies as well as women. A man who is going to father chldren without marriage, should submit to a vasectomy (which is reversible) to prevent pregnancy, and then we will not have to worry about abortion. Right now it's all about women and abortion. That can be changed.

[woodshoe]

06:15 AM on 01/22/2010

good for this thread too;

two documentary films full of stuff we should ALL be familiar with;
anyone not already very familiar with corporate culture.. what it is,.. how it started,.. what are its values, etc
..should consider setting aside the time to watch these films
(at least bookmark them for later!)

"the corporation" mark achbar (w/naomi klein/chomsky/michael moore and others)

here is the trailer;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa3wyaEe9vE

and here is the playlist on YT
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=36240027B32E7B82

and then, with particular interest in american consumer and political culture, advertising, marketing, and public psychology;

"the century of self" -adam curtis

here is the link for the playlist on YT (including the trailer);

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5A3095CC9F62FD00

if you have seen these films already and consider them valuable viewing, consider REPOSTING this downthread.. this is hel/a informative in a total of about 6 hours of viewing.

[ddanimal]

12:13 AM on 01/22/2010

Democrats better get their hands out of their pockets NOW!

This is an emergency!

[bettyx1138]

09:38 PM on 01/21/2010

thank u, mr. grayson.

[splathrop]

08:56 PM on 01/21/2010

How about this. Treat this as a problem of corporate governance, which it is. A shareholder and an executive won't have conflicts of interest regarding the outcomes of routine commercial expenditures. With regard to political expenditures, such conflicts will be commonplace. This needs to be guarded against.

Under the commerce clause, let Congress pass a law regulating political expenditures by corporations engaged in interstate commerce. Political expenditures must be approved in advance by shareholders fully informed with regard to the costs and the political positions proposed for support.

Unlike commercial expenditures, the outcomes of political expenditures have implications beyond the mere welfare of the corporation, affecting lives and public policy beyond the corporate walls. This makes the normal corporate practice of voting by share ownership inappropriate. Make the standard for approval 51% of a one-shareholder-one-vote election, without regard to the quantity of shares owned. Make beneficial ownership of shares the standard of eligibility to vote.

In this manner the ordinary standards of political elections can be brought to corporations wishing to participate as good citizens in the political process.

[Lastamendment]

02:04 AM on 01/22/2010

Sounds good to me (but I am a total layman, so that may not count for much).

Still, it seems like it could work. My only fear is all of the stuff I'm reading about how these laws need to be passed yesterday, because in a short time the money itself could influence the makeup of Congress so as to reject any such laws from passing in the future.

I think people should support Alan Grayson, because he doesn't seem afraid of anyone and can give a strong, intelligent (if occasionally indecorous) voice to this effort.

Trying times, as Thomas Paine would say.

[mythreecents]

05:49 PM on 01/21/2010

Let's remember, this was a 5-4 decision.


It's important to remember this, before we start getting very depressed and lose faith in our system. Had Justice William Rehnquist been replaced with a liberal when he died, today's court decision probably would have went the other way.


We need a constitutional amendment that requires that a person must live WITHIN a state to give money to candidate in a statewide contest (Senator, Governor).

Also, requiring that a person must live WITHIN a congressional district to be able to give money to a candidate running in that district.

That alone would go a long way towards limiting the amount of money necessary to run for office.

Otherwise, wealthy people from outside of a Congress members state or district can have a greater say and undue influence in who gets elected simply because they have greater financial resources to influence such campaigns.

It is said that Scott Brown's campaign was receiving one million dollars a day in the closing days of his campaign. Most of it came from out of state.

But the Supreme Court might find such a law as unconstitutional due to "limiting" free speech.

That is why, it would need to done n the form of a constitutional amendment.

Is there the political will to do that ?

Some brave member of Congress should at least be willing to introduce the idea, even if it fails.

Keep the faith folks.

This is well worth fighting for.

We can improve it.

[Lastamendment]

02:07 AM on 01/22/2010

From your keyboard to God's ears. Thanks for the dose of optimism - I can't read too much of this stuff at once without despairing.

[gunnergoz]

05:14 PM on 01/21/2010

Thank goodness for the likes of Representative Grayson. He is one of the few elected officials left in the Congress who understands and remains concerned about the transfer of political power in this country from the voters to the moneyed special interests.
Please keep up the fight, Alan!

[Kevin Lavelle]

02:29 PM on 01/21/2010

Actually, what he needs to do is to introduce a constitutional amendment declaring that corporations are not natural persons entitled to the same rights as natural persons. That would solve all the problems.

[soitgoes12]

02:37 PM on 01/21/2010

The petition is already out there..

Please sign and pass it along...

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/

www.movetoammend.org

[John Denton]

12:36 AM on 01/21/2010

Every society has a few wild men who break protocol to deliver the truth. One thing though. Instead of introducing a zany sixpack of bills, why not one with a serious name, pursued exclusively?

[Arsenic]

12:00 PM on 01/21/2010

That bill you ask about will come from the Democratic leadership. It will be very serious, written by serious people. Then Rahm, the DLC and the Blue Dogs will get ahold of it an fix a few things. President Lieberman and Vice President Snowe will have there say, and the final bill will be called "Doublemorebetter Freespeech" and will have the government giving the corporations a tax break for 'free speech' expenditures. I wish this was snark.

[Synoia]

04:42 PM on 01/21/2010

Corporation already have a tax break for "free speech" expenditures. It's called "expenses".

[ssfahrer]

10:01 PM on 01/20/2010

Would he also ban or restrict UNION money in Presidential and Congressional campaigns (since most unions are corporations, it would be only fair if they too are treated like any other 'corporation' )????

Since I don't think so, I have just exposed his hypocrisy. (Prove me wrong, Alan. Prove me wrong!)

[blingbling65943]

12:07 PM on 01/21/2010

Wake up pal, seriously wake up.

Corporations would never have been able to highjack our Democracy if it wasn't for ignorant Americans like you.

[WraithKenny]

12:22 PM on 01/21/2010

Since YOU don't think so, you expose HIS hypocrisy? Find the logical fallacy...

[tjwdraws]

11:32 AM on 01/20/2010

I LOVE Alan Grayson. A Man who is truly for We The People!

[yourmomscalling]

04:10 AM on 01/19/2010

GET RID OF THE LOBBYISTS THERE RUINING THIS COUNTRY !!!!!

[vino22]

10:19 PM on 01/18/2010

I dont agree with him most of the time but I think he is not a sell out.

[tehixe]

10:18 PM on 01/18/2010

I vote yes on all those bills. Now all I have to do is get a vote in Congress.