Rep. Waxman Confronts Chamber On Foreign Funds, Secret Corporate Campaign Money

[cal04]

Run time: 02:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_da2XCudXpI   Posted on YouTube: October 20, 2010 By YouTube Member: ThinkProgress2 Views on YouTube: 66   Posted on DU: October 20, 2010 By DU Member: cal04 Views on DU: 840

 
Waxman Confronts ‘U.S.’ Chamber Over Foreign Money Questions, Secret Corporate Campaign Funds
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/20/waxman-confronts-chamber/

[Charleston Chew]

1. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)

"Spending such money on an election in any country would be inappropriate. In this country it would also be illegal."

BRAVO!


Thank goodness for Rep. Henry Waxman.
He is a beacon of justice in the fog of corporate crime and corruption.

[Rhiannon12866]

4. +1. Very well said.

Here's to Henry Waxman! :toast: :patriot:

Welcome to DU, Charleston Chew! It's great to have you with us! :toast: :hi:

[democracy1st]

2. K & R

[otohara]

3. Call Them Out on OUTSOURCING

yes it's foreign money, but people need to know the reason WHY and it's because these countries want more American jobs.

[LandR]

5. Nice Job Waxman, but..

I have been following the ramifications of Citizens United v. FEC and have become quite acquainted with campaign finance laws. I like the attention that Waxman brings to this issue, but we must remember the Chamber of Commerce has not broken any laws. It is not illegal for foreign companies to give money used in a campaign, so long as that money only comes from American citizens working for that company. It is not foreign companies that are banned, but foreign people or those who are not American citizens. As a result, to prove wrongdoing on behalf of the CoC, we must have evidence that money received from foreign individuals has been used to fund a campaign. The broader point, though, is that business interests have an out-sized voice.

Further, Citizens United ought to be stuck down because it exacerbates the right to free speech. Free speech is not a blanket right. Just like you cannot yell "Fire!" in a movie theater, allowing special interests to spend as much as they please on political broadcasts is outside the bounds of free speech.

[SemperEadem]

6. it very well might not be illegal, HOWEVER it's the appearance--and the obfuscation

that are the issue.

For a group that is "so innocent, why butter couldn't ever melt in their mouths", they certainly are doing the most.

If you have nothing to hide, then open your books.

[LandR]

7. agreed

Indeed the disturbing thing is that this out-sized voice of business interests should be illegal, yet it isn't as a result of Citizen's United. Anyone who provides funding to campaigns ought to be public information, yet it is isn't. This is largely a result of the misuse of 501(c)(4) groups, which contributors do not have to be disclosed. The bill attempting to reform Citizen's United that failed in the Senate earlier this year would have prevented corporations with federal contracts greater than $7 million from contributing more than $1,000 toward electioneering communications. I'm not sure if the bill contained a provision requiring disclosure, but it certainly should. Right off the back, we can say that campaign reform needs two changes: public disclosure of all contributors no matter what and limits on special interest groups by way of the individual owner.

edit: typos