Search
Search By Topic
- ACCOUNTING (5)
- ADVOCACY (50)
- AMT (9)
- ANTITRUST (1)
- AVIATION (6)
- CAPITAL MARKETS (41)
- CARD CHECK (32)
- CARRIED INTEREST (2)
- CFIUS (1)
- CHINA (5)
- CLIMATE CHANGE (37)
- COMPETITIVENESS (32)
- CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP (19)
- COUNTERFEITING (38)
- DATA SECURITY (9)
- DISASTER (18)
- DISCRIMINATION (12)
- ECONOMICS (332)
- EDUCATION (56)
- ELECTIONS (53)
- EMPLOYMENT (36)
- ENERGY (87)
- ENERGY INSTITUTE (13)
- ENVIRONMENT (37)
- FMLA (4)
- GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING (10)
- H-1B (4)
- HEALTH CARE (137)
- HOMELAND SECURITY (10)
- HSA (2)
- IMMIGRATION (51)
- INFLATION (5)
- INFRASTRUCTURE (41)
- INSURANCE (5)
- INTERNATIONAL (13)
- INTERNET (19)
- LABOR (36)
- LEGAL REFORM (67)
- MARKETING (14)
- MEDICARE (1)
- MINIMUM WAGE (4)
- NCF (6)
- NCLB (17)
- NCLC (23)
- OSHA (1)
- PENSION (1)
- REAL ESTATE (11)
- REGULATORY (52)
- RETIREMENT (8)
- SB SUMMIT (5)
- SBA (19)
- SEC (2)
- SMALL BUSINESS (291)
- SOUTH KOREA (2)
- SOX (6)
- SPACE (2)
- SPIRIT OF ENTERPRISE (12)
- SUMMIT (8)
- SUPREME COURT (9)
- TAXES (121)
- TECHNOLOGY (69)
- TRADE (80)
- TRANSPORTATION (46)
- UNIONS (42)
- WELLNESS (20)
- WORKFORCE (65)
 September 2010 |
|
|
CommentaryDISCLOSE Act Muzzles Business
Publication Date:
June 2010
Though it comes wrapped in the language of transparency, the DISCLOSE Act has a far plainer intent—to discourage people from exercising their constitutional right to free speech. Introduced by two members of Congress tasked with winning elections—Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), former chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee—this legislation threatens the First Amendment rights of businesses across the country. The bill’s sponsors admit that its purpose is to deter corporations from participating in the political process. Sen. Schumer has said that the bill will make corporations “think twice” before attempting to influence election outcomes, and that this “deterrent effect should not be underestimated.” With an overwhelming—and unconstitutional—emphasis on limiting the speech of for-profit corporations and the associations that represent them, the DISCLOSE Act discriminates against America’s job creators, prohibiting them from expressing political views. The Schumer–Van Hollen bill, for example, places a blanket prohibition on all election-related speech by companies with federal contracts above a specific monetary threshold ($50,000 in the Senate; $7 million in the House). Of the thousands of businesses that regularly participate in contracts with the federal government, many would be categorically barred from making their political views known. This prohibition on core political speech is directly inconsistent with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Congress can prohibit political speech only where it has evidence of quid pro quo corruption. There is no such evidence to support such a broad prohibition. At the same time, the Schumer–Van Hollenbill effectively imposes no comparable restrictions on labor unions. Unions that receive federal grants, for instance, can continue to engage in political activities. This comes despite the fact that unions and their political action committees are the single largest contributors to political campaigns and claim to have spent nearly $450 million in the 2008 presidential race. It’s a sad day when legislators like Rep. Van Hollen and Sen. Schumer so blatantly put politics before the people’s business. With unemployment near 10%, members of Congress should be more concerned about creating jobs than protecting their own. Stifling free speech is an abuse of the legislative process and is unconstitutional, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will not let this stand. Free speech does not corrupt our politics, but efforts to limit it do. |
|
| |
|
Comments
Time to kick them all out off office - however, there is only one person dumber then politican and that is the voter. We will see what 2010 offers - but the sooner people like Schumer are gone the better off this country will be. Long live freedom. (San Antonio, Tx)
One of the biggest concerns was for foreign corporations being involved in our political process but someone please tell me, what is foreign and what is domestic in today's world. Further, if this were to become law, and we were to lose our freedom of speach, whould it not be appropriate for the UNIONS to suffer the same blow??????????Bruce (Fresno, California)
Absolutely, Unions should suffer the same blow. They are not natural persons either. Let's stick to our constitution. (Placitas, NM)
One more thought on this: Let's push to remove the 17th Amendment and go back to having our Senators appointed by our State Legislators. If we do this, most of the crap coming out of Washington wouldn't! Each Senator would once again have the interest of their State FIRST, not their campaign contributors.And maybe the biggest bonus of all will be that self-serving politicians like Schumer will never see another day in the Senate. (Bridgewater, NJ)
You have GOT to be kidding! Long Live Freedom? for Corporations?A quick re-reading of the constitution clearly shows that the first amendment is about speech (not money) for people (not corporations, or unions). How in the world did this get so perverted? This long downward slide into believing that corporations should have the same rights as natural persons has slowly but surely taken the power away from the people. Remember of, by and for the people?There are two 900-lb. gorillas in your life, Government and Corporations. One is of, by and for the people, the other is clearly not. In other words, one can be influenced and controlled by you, through the political process as designed by our founding fathers.The other? Dream on. (Placitas, NM)
Restrictions on free speech by politicians should be a concern to everyone. Whether it is a business or a union both groups have vested interests in the political process and laws. What are you afraid of? Corporations are made up of a group of people like unions or professuional associations. These 2 Senators are sponsoring this unconstituional bill because they think it will silence conservative groups. Free speech should be the last thing we let these politicians limit. If you are afraid of words perhaps perhaps you have something to hise. (Shrewsbury, MA)
Bruce is absolutely right. The constitution guarantees free speech to all citizens. The Supreme Court has decided that political donations are part of free speech. But, since when are corporations citizens? They do not vote. They do not get married. They are not people. The are treated as though they were epople for the purposed of contracts and liability - but they are not people. A corporation is founded to make money. This is a great gol and is what makes Americia prosperous. That does not mean that our elected officials should spend most of their time raising money from these corporations. Nor should they be able to accept money from corporations or corporate stand--ins. While capitalism is wonderful and the basis of our prosperity, it is not exactly the same as Democracy. We have to be vigilant to protect Democracy. Elan (Cape May, NJ)
Are Labor Unions different from the Corporations that you are dissing? I think not. Why didn't you mention the Labor Unions?????????? (Brudgewater, NJ)
One man one Vote. Campaign contributions should come from individuals. Each employee from CEO on down though their personal choices should fund campaigns. As for disclosure, I just want to know how much of the money comes from outside the country for each candidate in presidential campaigns, how much money comes from out of state for each Montana Senate or House candidate, how much money in each county commission campaign comes from outside Gallatin County, and where the campaign money for mayor comes from. The most responsible office holders will be the ones who's campaign is funded by people who actually live in their respective country, state, district or city. (Bozeman, Montana)
The is an absolute abuse of power. The politicians like Schmuck Schumer know very well it will be challenged and found unconstitutional in the courts - but by that time it will be too late (they hope) as all they need is to hold on to majorities in November - by the time the next election cycle comes around (which will includie the Presidential election) it will be too late to turn this Great Ship around.This makes each of our involvement that more important - doesn't it... (Bridgewater, NJ)
We have had so many "sad days" in the last couple of years that we are all just shell shocked. Wonder which straw is going to break the camels back? My camel is about at her weight limit....what about yours? (Lubbock, TX)
Very well said. (Lubbock, Tx)
November is an amazing month,hopefully, in most of the country, all of those BLUE leaves... will! (Brandon, FL)
Muzzle Schumer and Van Hollen until they can pass a test on the Constitution. I'm tired of them. I'm tired of their tactics. (Reno, Nevada)
Congress or the supreme court needs to do something to keep corporate America from buying our elections. This plan sounds like a place to start. A coproration is NOT an American citizen and should not have all the rights of one. Just another reason why I wonder why I pay my Chamber dues. (Jefferson, Iowa)
Why then would it not apply to Unions as well? Taxes are also paid by corporations, so they should have a right to voice their opinion in the political world just like you can. Every corporation was started by a person, a tax paying person, so give them the right to express their views as to how they pertain to their business, or you are stiffling free speech. If you don't like the Chamber, stop paying dues, you should remember what the Chamber does for business, unless you work for the government. (Torrington, Wy)
Then let the people contribute the money. Make the political aspirations of the corporations 100% tansparent. (Scottsdale, AZ)
A labor union is also not an American citizen and should not have the rights of one. All we ask for is a fair playing field. If you want to ban union participation AND corporation participation I am all for it. However; if you are going to allow one then you must allow the other. (Gastonia, NC)
You're right. Companies are not American citizens. The people running the companies are... and those owners and operators of companies have the right to free speech. Why should the CEO of a company not be able to utilize his company to express his views? Why should the sole proprietor of a company not be able to express his views? He has the right as an American citizen, does he not?However, if this is right for Corporate America, then it is right for labor unions as well. "Companies" are not American citizens. But, neither are "labor unions" American citizens. It's the people running them who are citizens. Based on your argument that only citizens have the right, why allow the labor unions the right, but take it from companies. (Roxboro, NC)
Corporate America has definately earned a bad name, but remember- many small businesses are also corporations. So basically you are saying that as a small business owner I can't decide where to make contributions and I should not have a voice. Many times corporations and individuals are one in the same.Also as "the backbone of the America" if I don't fight for my rights and use my funds generated through my business, there will be no backbone! (Greer, SC)
This is simply another chapter out of Sal Lowinsky playbook. Silence your opponets, and of course the bill is sponsored by Democrats. Let'sall get to the polls this fall and get some grown ups in DC that take their oath to support the constitution seriously. Now we are seeing the environmental grasping at property rights. Devaluing your assett by various new laws. I am sure the next thing will be no mortgage deduction (Purcellville , Va)
Bill's comments in an earlier post, "Bill6/15/2010 5:56:27 PMCongress or the supreme court needs to do something to keep corporate America from buying our elections. This plan sounds like a place to start. A coproration is NOT an American citizen and should not have all the rights of one. Bill , Unions AREN'T AMERICAN CITIZENS EITHER!! Hello!! (Baton Rouge, LA)
I have no problem with for-profits exercising free speech, as long as they are subject to the same political scrutiny, campaign finance limits, and vulnerability to prosecution as individuals are. (Salt Lake City, UT)
The President is an ideologue who lacks the maturity of judgement for his job. He is the head of his party, a party where San Francisco Nancy is mainstream and half the voters don't pay tax but get rebates or income. There is really nothing more to be said. (Lincoln, NE)
This administration ran on hope, change and transparency. We finally have hope that change will soon occur because of their transparent attempts to hijack our constitution. How much more proof would even the most dimwitted voter need to see the reality of the situation? (Dallas, Tx)
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
Favoring unions over businesses is really bad. Blanket prohibition on government contractors’ political speech is questionable. But, real disclose of cash-flows in U.S. politics is essential to survival of democracy in this country. (Van Nuys, CA)
A corporation is not a person. The law will not limit free speach by anyone, it will limit the amount of bribe money that can be thrown at politicians and influence legislation. The comments I have read are unhappy with the actions of the legislative branch but will not support a bill that is meant to fix the problem. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. (Rockville, MD)
I am writing about the HVCC (Housing Valution Code of Conduct). As an ethical pratitioner of residential real estate appraisals, I am beside myself with this new way of interfering with small business. How many real estate appraisers that are members of the US Chamber of Commerce have to go out of business or have their revenues cut in half for the identical work before you act on our behalf. It is a trajedy for small business owners everywhere and the US Chamber of Commerce has done nothing to help, ...why not????? (Boynton Beach, Florida)
And this has to do with the topic at hand... how? (Roxboro, NC)
Since when are businesses individuals? The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech for Americans, not for American companies. They can run all the advertising they want to sell their products, but why should we allow them to try and buy our elections? Do you really think that my $100 or $200 contribution to a candidate will influence his or her vote as much as a $2,000 or $40,000 or $100,000 contribution that a large firm can make? Let the contributions come out of the enormous paychecks that the owners are getting instead of adding to the cost of the products that I end up buying. (Bozeman, MT)
If I didn't know better I would think I am back the late 1920's in Germany, when everyone was thinking how wonderful Hitler was and what he would do for his Country and no one spoke up that his ideas where going to take away everyones rights and freedoms. Aren't we doing the same thing this very minute? Are you willing to give up everything our fore fathers worked so had and paid such a terrific price for, all those years ago. Did we lose all our young men and women in all the wars since that time, only to be back in the same place? WAKE UP, AMERICA AND STAND UP FOR GOD AND COUNTRY and let no man or woman take our rights away from EVER. (Lakeside, AZ)
I've been a business owner for 20 years and if there's one thing I recognize, it's that companies aren't people, no matter what the SCOTUS says. People and not companies are the constituents of elected representatives, and people, not companies, are entitled to free speech in elections. (Camarillo, CA)
It's scary how far left our leaders can take us before a greater number of people understand how detrimental negative policies disguised with "good social intentions' can be. (Richfield-, MN)
Don't forget the most powerful election voice out there will also be exempt from this State-imposed political omerta; that is big media and unions. So let me get this straight . . . SEIU and the New York Times will be unrestrained to unabashedly support anti-business Dems (i.e. Shumer and Holland). While the actual producers and providers of food, shelter and clothing are silenced against those who assail them for populist gain. Anyone ever hear of the "smell test"? This, as most emissions from D.C. of late, stinks to high-heaven. (Victoria, Texas)
OK- I have to ask. It would seem to me that this law would be able to be enforced on all unions under the following premise: According to Sec. 101 of the proposed legislation, the act will prohibit expenditures for "any person who enters into a contract described in such subsection.... if the value of the contract is equal to or greater than $7,000,000."Now, tell me if I'm wrong here, but don't unions representing public employees negotiate and 'enter into' contracts with the federal/state/local governments all the time? I'm sure lawyers will try to weasel out of this by saying it's not the union entering the contract, but I suspect that the unions ARE the one's entering into the contracts on behalf of the employees whom the unions represent. Am I wrong? (Bremerton, WA)
If you value free speech you should also value transparency. If you value what you support, lend it your name, whether personal or corporate. The Chamber's ideological response to this bill is to be expected. (Crystal Lake, IL)
I wonder what ever happened to the Constitution? I noticed than one of your readers said that a corporation is not a person. Well, neither is a union, They are both large groups of persons. Many corporations have more shareholders than unions have members. Many small businesses are a single person, or a group of a few persons. In my small business, I regard my partners and employees as family. When exactly, did ignorance become epidemic. (Memphis, TN)
Schumer and Van Hollen never read Plato or the U.S. Constitution. In his 'Republic' Plato acknowledged that common sense must not be legislated, because it is self-evident to everyone. He said that the (foolish) legislators who think they can control the citizens through more and more legislation do not realize that attempting to do so is akin to contending with Hydra. What was self-evident to a lowly person with common sense in 300 B.C. is a complete enigma to the modern U.S. Politician, ignorant of history, ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, bereft of common sense. In the words of the reality show host, "America, you've voted"... and the winner is... Socialist Fascism! This Administration is either inept, or simply intent. (Seattle, WA)
Think twice before making a contribution to any PAC "political action committee" fund your employer may sponsor. Until the "corporation" makes its' views public PRIOR to any election, you'd be really surprised to know how they've used YOUR funds to help THEIR cause(s). In fact you may have supported something you are strongly against!The proposed limits of $50,000 and $7,000,000 seem very wide spread and I can't help but wonder why and WHAT companies are being considered which make these amounts so far apart. Unions are not included... hmmm - interesting - why are not-for-profit included too? If one-size can't fit ALL then it should fit NONE.Leave the Constitution alone! No more restrictions to limit (or take away) our individual rights including freedom of speech. Change will come. (Orlando, FL)
These "limits" are not donation amounts. They're the value of contracts with the government. In other words, In very simple terms, the bill says, "If you do business with the government and they pay your check, shut up about - and don't contribute to - any political causes you believe in." (Roxboro, NC)
The problem isn't corporations, its the publicly traded corporations. While many of the small businesses consider employees as family, the big guys consider them as a cost. Nothing more, nothing less. These corporations are owned by people inside and outside of the US. They care about their dollars, and are perfectly willing to jeopardize the welfare of the nation to preserve them. At least union members live in the country. (Tacoma, Washington)
Ditto to what Karen said; my camel's back is about to break as well.Whatever happened to that "laser-like focus on jobs"???I am getting so tired of lip service, and the lack of leadership, from this administration. Anyone for a recall movement? (Lafayette, IN)
Plain and simple, if Schumer is selling...I ain't buying. As far as the administration goes , quick to have an apology tour and a "beer summit" but you can't have a conversation after 2 months with BP CEO Tony Hayward about the worst environmental disaster in the nations's history ????It's alarming but not surprising. (Stamford, CT)
To put limits on corporations involving free speech or the right to contribute, effects us all. We're assuming large corporations. What about small corporations ( mom and pop style, 10-25 employees) ,who do small government contracts. How does that impact them. All you need is a crack to fracture a boulder, what's next. If you want to start somewhere, stop electing the foxes to watch the hen house. Hire a lawyer don't elect one. Think thats bad, wait for the 20,000 new IRS agents to get started, a proctologist would be less invasive. (Emory, Tx)
Most of you are joking, I hope!! Do you really believe that if you vote the Democrats out and vote the Republicans in things will change?? None of our current politicians have the guts to stand up for anything right!! I don't care what party they are in!! I do have a problem with any party being able to buy the Whitehouse or any office for that matter. That's excatly what will happen, if big Corporations are aloud to express their political preferences using big money. Having said that, like unions they should be able to endorse candatiates, but that's it!! (Manassas, VA)
The Bill of Rights is very direct about this point.Amendment I“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”How can any person, no matter what station in the government legislate against the First Amendment and expect to win. The Senators should find ways to limit graft and corruption in their own ranks versus limiting free speech. (Akron, Ohio)
The Real Issue is the amount of money these companies pay in taxes, not what they contribute in campaigns. If a company pays taxes like a citezen, then I do think they should have the same small right I do to contribute "small" amounts to an individuals campaign. It makes no sense to anyone I know that a company with only the bottom line in mind, has more rights to donate and contribute to the people that are supposed to work for the majority of the paople, not the businesses. This is a country made for the people by the people, not for money by money, we need to take a look at the early years of our country when labor laws, and monopoly laws were made, it proves that the people are more important than any corperation, and no corperation is thinking about anything but how to make more money! (Rutland, VT)
The fact that the Democratts are trying to limit free speech should scare the ***** out of aanybody with common sense. Whether it be a person, corporation or asociation there should be freedom of speech otherwise the law abiding citizens would not only hear the truth about situations abut also the lies that are being spread, this way we will know what to fight for with our votes or otherwise if necessary. (North Augusta, South Carolina)
"The people running the companies are... and those owners and operators of companies have the right to free speech. Why should the CEO of a company not be able to utilize his company to express his views? Why should the sole proprietor of a company not be able to express his views?"we're not talking about free speech. we're talking about spending money. there is a difference. the owners and operators of businesses have the right as individuals to speak their minds (and spend their own money) if they like. that is absolute. no one is taking that away. i'd fight to the death if necessary to defend that right. what is being limited is corporate spending to influence elections (don't corporate officers have better things to do than play politics?)to those who oppose this measure, i ask this question: how do you feel about public companies spending corporate funds to taking stands that may be at odds with the interests of their shareholders? (Delray Beach, Florida)
This is simple. Everyone should be able to participate or it is not a DEMOCRACY. Right now, the press is more powerful than coporations. The press is making the BP oil spill situation worse. The press does whatever it takes to get advertising revenue even it means SKEWERING THE TRUTH to reach the demographics sought by advertisers. Hellen Thomas is not the only bad journalist ruining America.If everything is held in the light for all to see, there should be nothing to hide.Greg Weatherman (Arlington , VA)
Post new comment