The correct answers are:
C) Russ Feingold and John McCain
A) Citizens united v. Federal Elections Commission
B) Buckley v. Valeo
C) Campaign Finance Reform Act
D) Hard money, soft money
B) Federal Election Commission
Equity, Politics and Hypocrisy. Lessons from other countries and the case for...John Middleton
A presentation of the national disaster of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK (especially England) A combination of political dogma, incompetence, negligence and corruption, and a brief consideration of corporate manslaughter. 200910 middletonj vr3 corporate manslaughter
A breakdown of political reform items on which Ronald Kimmons and John Culberson agree and disagree. For more information, see democracy.com/ronald-kimmons.
Equity, Politics and Hypocrisy. Lessons from other countries and the case for...John Middleton
A presentation of the national disaster of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK (especially England) A combination of political dogma, incompetence, negligence and corruption, and a brief consideration of corporate manslaughter. 200910 middletonj vr3 corporate manslaughter
A breakdown of political reform items on which Ronald Kimmons and John Culberson agree and disagree. For more information, see democracy.com/ronald-kimmons.
Read Case 2-6 on page 59- Answer the question- -Should corporations ha.docxlmarie40
Read Case 2.6 on page 59. Answer the question, "Should corporations have constitutional rights?" Why or why not? Please support your opinion with resources.
FACT SUMMARY In an attempt to regulate big WORDS OF THE COURT: Protected Speech money campaign contributions by corporations "The Court has recognized that First Amendment and labor unions in federal elections, Congress protection extends to corporations.... When Govenacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ernment seeks to use its full power, including the in 2002 (commonly referred to as the "McCain- criminal law, to command where a person may get Feingold Act"), which imposed a wide variety his or her information or what distrusted source he of restrictions on "electioneering communica- or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control tions," including an outright ban on issue advocacy thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment advertising or issue ads paid for by corporations confirms the freedom to think for ourselves. ... and labor unions. Citizens United, a conservative Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits nonprofit corporation, produced a 90 -minute docu- on Youtube.com might portray public officials or mentary called Hillary: The Movie, which criti- public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered cized then-Senator Hillary Clinton and questioned transmission during the blackout period creates the her fitness for office. (Figure 2.1 depicts the poster background for candidate endorsement or opposiart that Citizens United used to promote its politi- tion, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, cal documentary.) The group planned to show the other than an exempt media corporation, has made film on cable TV during the upcoming 2008 Dem- the 'purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, ocratic presidential primaries. Before releasing the deposit, or gift of money or anything of value' in film, Citizens United brought an action in the U.S. order to engage in political speech. Speech would District Court for the District of Columbia against be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real agency in charge of enforcing federal election law. election. Governments are often hostile to speech, The U.S. district court ruled in favor of the FEC, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger and Citizens United appealed to the U.S. Supreme than fiction for our Government to make this politiCourt, arguing that the campaign reform finance cal speech a crime. Yet this is the statute's purpose law violated the First Amendment on its face and and design." when applied to Hillary: The Movie and to the ads promoting the film. Case Questions SYNOPSIS OF DECISION AND OPINION The 1. What if Citizens United had published a book U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court and cizing Hillary Clinton? Does the McCainruled in favor of Citizens United by a 5-4 vote. Fe.
Our 5th Impact Forum was held on September 14, 2016 at Civic Hall, NYC's foremost center for civic technology & innovation, on the topic of Elections. Election Systems are best understood by the rules and incentives constructed around them. Evaluating the United States’ and New York’s Electoral Systems reveals a series of important policy choices that will shape what our electorate will look like in the coming decades. Impact Elections will dig into key question such as: How does money predict elections? How will technology shape voting of the future? Does the current voting system fundamentally fail certain segments of our country's population? What can voting systems from other nations tell us about options for change?
Impact Experts composing the panel at Elections included: Ann Ravel (Federal Elections Commissioner), Gustavo Rivera (New York State Senator), James Bopp (Plaintiff's Attorney for Citizens United v. FEC), Richard Briffault (Professor, Columbia Law School), the legal advisor to Stephen Colbert's Presidential Campaign, the President of the NYC Campaign Finance Board, and more.
Learn more about Impact Elections here:
https://impactelections2016.splashthat.com
Citizens United Is Unconstitutional - Restore Democracy to The PeopleLinda Sturgeon
Visit http://americansforamendment.org/ for more information.
We are not affiliated with MTA, but, this quote is most applicable from https://movetoamend.org/voters-both-parties-object-supreme-court-activism "We’re fed up with the influence of Big Money in our political system. “If anything can unite Americans across party and ideological lines, it should be the arrogant and unprecedented Supreme Court ruling [Citizens United] that corporations [including unions, associations, and other entities] are “persons” with all the protections and rights of the Constitution. In a case trumped up by the court itself, five activist judges reversed 100 years of precedent to allow unlimited, special-interest money to be spent in our local, state and federal elections. Corporations [and other entities] are now free to spend unlimited money on behalf of a candidate they favor, or against one they wish to silence. No grassroots organization will ever be likely to raise enough money for their candidate to compete on a level playing field. Put simply in a New York Times headline, the story comes down to, “Lobbies’ New Power: Cross Us and Our Cash Will Bury You.” As moderate Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. wrote, “The only proper response to this distortion of our political system by ideologically driven justices is a popular revolt.”The choice is simple. Will government answer to the people, or serve special interests? Will elections be an opportunity for the people to speak powerfully to their government, or will elections become competitions among corporate powers, unions and giant foundations to serve their own interests? And what if corporate interests are tied to an unfriendly foreign power? It is difficult to imagine how our democracy would be strengthened by a large infusion of cash into our political process from such governments as Russia, China or Saudi Arabia. Most outrage at this attack on democracy focuses on national politics. However, the ruling also nullifies protections against corporate domination of elections in the 23 states, including Colorado, that model their laws on the federal Constitution.”
Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionFor more than 100 .docxmonicafrancis71118
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
For more than 100 years Congress and the Supreme Court carefully fashioned laws to check corporate power in elections. At first, the restraints were loose, but over the years they tightened. There were de- bates and a few dissents, but the nation never hesi- tated in its direction—until 2010 when five justices of the Supreme Court decided to reverse course. This is the story of their decision. It begins in the nation’s youth.
CONGRESS PROTECTS
ELECTIONS
In the American philosophy of self-government, free elections are an indispensable bulwark against tyranny. The founders believed all citizens should have the right to vote, that their votes should count equally, and that a majority should prevail. The rules in the Constitution bound the young nation to these ideals. The Founding Fathers also believed that if citizens were to vote wisely, they needed full, open debate on candidates and issues. The central purpose of the First Amendment, which directs that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” is to protect this debate.
In the early years of the republic the practice largely accorded with the ideal. The first challenge came right after the Civil War when violence and intimidation kept freed slaves from the polls. Con- gress passed two Enforcement Acts in 1870 and 1871 to protect the freed slaves’ right to vote and these were the first election laws. The Supreme Court eventually upheld “the [constitutional] power of [C]ongress to make such provisions as are necessary to secure the fair and honest conduct of an election.”1
A second challenge to “fair and honest conduct” in elections arose when industrial growth created pools of great wealth. By the 1870s railroads were already spending heavily for political favors. In 1873 Jay Gould, owner of the Erie Railroad, explained his businesslike approach to elections.
It was the custom when men received nominations to come to me for contributions, and I made them and considered them good paying dividends for the company; in a republican district I was a strong re- publican, in a democratic district I was democratic, and in doubtful districts I was doubtful; in politics
I was an Erie railroad man every time.2
As time passed, the amounts of business money in elections grew. So did public perception of corrup- tion, real and imagined. Standard Oil is reported to have given a check for $250,000 (about $6.4 million in current dollars) to reelect McKinley in 1900. In 1905 an investigation of New York insurance companies inflamed the nation. It revealed they had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars electing state and national politicians. A prominent Republican boss, when asked if these contributions bought favors, re- plied: “That’s naturally what would be involved.”3 The investigation also revealed a $50,000 ($1.2 mil- lion in today’s dollars) donation from New York Life to President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Roosevelt, who had s.
9/9 FRI 9:30 | Combating Corruption By Being Ethical 2APA Florida
Nancy Stroud
The training session will focus on the new fourth section of the AICP Ethics Code. Included will be a dialogue about the ongoing ethical code efforts in Broward and Palm Beach counties to help combat the political corruption that has sent multiple city
and county commissioners, and at least one certified planner, to prison. A must hear for all planners.
01062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
El Puerto de Algeciras continúa un año más como el más eficiente del continente europeo y vuelve a situarse en el “top ten” mundial, según el informe The Container Port Performance Index 2023 (CPPI), elaborado por el Banco Mundial y la consultora S&P Global.
El informe CPPI utiliza dos enfoques metodológicos diferentes para calcular la clasificación del índice: uno administrativo o técnico y otro estadístico, basado en análisis factorial (FA). Según los autores, esta dualidad pretende asegurar una clasificación que refleje con precisión el rendimiento real del puerto, a la vez que sea estadísticamente sólida. En esta edición del informe CPPI 2023, se han empleado los mismos enfoques metodológicos y se ha aplicado un método de agregación de clasificaciones para combinar los resultados de ambos enfoques y obtener una clasificación agregada.
An astonishing, first-of-its-kind, report by the NYT assessing damage in Ukraine. Even if the war ends tomorrow, in many places there will be nothing to go back to.
‘वोटर्स विल मस्ट प्रीवेल’ (मतदाताओं को जीतना होगा) अभियान द्वारा जारी हेल्पलाइन नंबर, 4 जून को सुबह 7 बजे से दोपहर 12 बजे तक मतगणना प्रक्रिया में कहीं भी किसी भी तरह के उल्लंघन की रिपोर्ट करने के लिए खुला रहेगा।
03062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Here is Gabe Whitley's response to my defamation lawsuit for him calling me a rapist and perjurer in court documents.
You have to read it to believe it, but after you read it, you won't believe it. And I included eight examples of defamatory statements/
04062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
2. In 1975, Congress created the Federal
Election Commission (FEC) to
administer and enforce the Federal
Election Campaign Act (FECA).
The duties of the FEC are to disclose
campaign finance information, to
enforce the provisions of the law such as
the limits and prohibitions on
contributions, and to oversee the public
funding of Presidential elections.
3. The Commission is made up of six
members, who are appointed by the President
of the Unites States and confirmed by the
United States Senate. Each member serves a
six-year term, and two seats are subject to
appointment every two years.
5. •BCRA stands for Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act
•It regulates financial spending of political
campaigns
•Intended to get money out of politics
6. When: October 23, 2002.
Why: Election spending was out of control.
Election focused too much on raising money
for the campaign instead of the issues. Time
was being wasted in the effort to raise and
spend money on election campaign.
John McCain and Russ Feingold
7. Stands for Political Action Committee
PACs are political committees that raise money
to fund candidates in elections
They are usually represented by businesses or
other large organizations
They PACs raise money to reelect and defeat
candidates
8. Any individual who donates money to fund
candidates in an election.
They can raise or donate any amount of cash to
support a campaign.
10. -Wealthy and powerful businessmen or
politicians
-EX.: Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Michael Eisner
(Former CEO of Disneyworld), Mitt
Romney, Steven Spielberg.
11. -Those contribution that are given directly to
candidates for their campaigns from congress or the
whitehouse.
-Limited in amount & must be reported.
-Ex.: Mitt Romney asked for money for his campaign
from congress, and Obama asked for money from the
white house.
12. -Funds given to parties in unlimited amounts to be
used for “Party Building Activities”.
-given to by the public, large corporations, fat cats, and
other big third party contributors willing to inject sums
of cash into their favored parties.
-Ex.: party national conventions, get-out-to-vote drives.
13. -Occurred as a result of the Watergate affair
Richard Nixon had (which led to his
resignation).
-Congress attempted to ferret out corruption in
political campaigns.
-Restricted financial contribution to candidates.
-Passed by 7 votes to 1.
14. -Main question: Did these restrictions violate
first amendment rights of the speech and
associations clause?
-The limit on total campaign expenditures was
violating first amendment rights.
-Limits to individual injections on their
campaigns was believed to not violate 1st
amendment rights.
15. -Resulted from a documentary made about Hillary
Clinton.
-The film was critical to her candidacy for her
party’s Presidential Nomination.
-The film was to be released 30 days before the
primary elections.
-Citizens United sought declaratory and
injunctive relief from the BCRA.
-The District Court denied CU a preliminary
injunction, as it violated the point that no
“electioneering communication” can be displayed
30 days before an election.
16. Citizens United argued that Hillary (The documentary)
was not “electioneering communication” because it is
not “publicly distributed”
-Argued that it violated free speech.
-Argued that a communication “is the functional
equivalent of express advocacy only if it is susceptible
of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal
to vote for or against a specific candidate.”
-Argued that documentary making does not distort the political
process more or less than television ads.
The court decided that the Campaign Finance reform
act in the BCRA’s notions to add provisions to disallow
citizens from showing political movies 30 days before
elections, claiming that these changes would be
unconstitutional.
17. Who were the two people that proposed the
BCRA?
A. John McCain and Bill Clinton
B. Bill Clinton and John Valeo
C. Russ Feingold and John McCain
D. John Valea and Russ Feingold
18. ______ was the court case that let Federal law
prohibit corporations and Unions from using their
general treasury funds to make independent
expenditure.
A) Citizens united v. Federal Elections Commission
B) The Watergate Scandal
C) Campaign Finance Reform Act
D) Buckley v. Valeo
19. ______ resulted from the Watergate affair as
Congress attempted to secret out corruption from
political campaigns.
A) The FEC
B) Buckley v. Valeo
C) Campaign Finance Reform Act
D) Citizens United v. FEC
20. _____ are contributions given directly to candidates
for their campaigns from Congress, and _____ are
funds given to parties in unlimited amounts for “Party
building activities”.
A) Soft money, hard money
B) Surpluses, soft money
C) Hard money, surpluses
D) Hard money, soft money
21. Congress created this in order to administer and
enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act.
A) Electoral College
B) Federal Election Commission
C) Federal Finance Campaign
D) Senate