Fri Jul 13, 2012, 04:57 PM
thomhartmann (3,058 posts)
Thom Hartmann: Do We Need the Disclose Act or a Constitutional Amendment?
David Cobb, Move to Amend, joins Thom Hartmann. I've said it before - and I'll say it again - the only way Mitt Romney can win the White House is by lying. And it helps that he has the help of people like the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, and a slew of mysterious anonymous donors, all who've pledged to spend over a billion dollars this election cycle to plaster over Romney's lies. They can do this because of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010. And ever since that decision - Democrats in Congress have been desperately trying to at least bring some transparency to this new avalance of corporate spending in our elections. They've been trying to pass legislation so that if corporations and millionaires and billionaires want to spend billions to cover up Mitt Romney's lies - then at least we the voters should know where that money is coming from. In 2010 - Democrats in the House of Representatives passed the DISCLOSE Act, which would have done just that. Unfortunately - the DISCLOSE Act laws filibustered that year by the Republican minority in the Senate. So now - Democrats in the Senate are trying it again. On Tuesday - Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and eight other Senate Democrats proposed a new, watered-down DISCLOSE Act, hoping that the latest, more corporate-friendly legislation may attract some Republicans supporters. But is this really the strategy Progressives should be using to get corporate money out of our politics. Or do we need to be bolder and push for a Constitutional Amendment that once and for all says corporations are not people, and money is property - not speech?
The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann on RT TV & FSTV "live" 9pm and 11pm check www.thomhartmann.com/tv for local listings
2 replies, 831 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Response to thomhartmann (Original post)
Sat Jul 14, 2012, 10:10 PM
jjewell (615 posts)
2. Yes, we need a Constitutional Amendment...
because the blatantly obvious (corporations are not people, and money is property not speech),
has been overturned by the Supreme Court, and a Constitutional Amendment is the only way to supercede the Court.