There are some thick, black lines being drawn here for November. I’m actually glad to see all the Senate Rs show their true colors. Sadly, I can’t say this won’t affect my shopping habits.
This will probably be the subject matter next time I choose the book, so here’s a little primer. Note the part where corporation have the same free speech rights (i.e., right to spend on political candidates) as citizens.
Bill on political ad disclosures falls a little short in Senate
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), left, called the bill “a partisan effort, pure and simple.” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the bill’s chief architect, said he will try again
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation requiring fuller disclosure of the money behind political advertising, derailing a major White House initiative and virtually ensuring an onslaught of attack ads during this year’s midterm election season.
The legislation was drafted as a response to the 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The court found that corporations had the same rights as individuals to engage in political speech and could therefore spend as much as they wanted for or against specific candidates. Obama pointedly criticized the ruling during his State of the Union address, prompting an unusual public objection weeks later by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
One example of the effect of the Citizens United case came to light this week in Minnesota, where a Republican-leaning political group reported accepting $150,000 from Target and $100,000 from Best Buy. The group, MN Forward, is running TV ads supporting state Rep. Tom Emmer, the likely GOP nominee for governor. The case also illustrates the perils of disclosure for corporations: Democrats and gay advocacy groups have threatened boycotts in light of the contributions.