Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

And while most Americans understand this system to be badly broken already, the US Supreme Court this year ruled, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to permit unlimited spending by corporations and unions to influence elections. Indeed, early figures show that vastly more money is being spent to influence the outcome of our elections this fall – $4.2 billion in political ad spending alone compared with just $2.1 billion in 2008, according to Borrell Associates. Less than a third of organizations spending money on the fall elections thus far are disclosing their sources of funds, thereby denying citizens any knowledge of who is trying to influence the election.

As an important first step in reclaiming our elections and curbing the undue influence of special interests on our candidates, it is high time that Congress passed the Fair Elections Now Act, introduced in the House by my former colleagues Democrat John Larson of Connecticut and Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina. Modeled after successful Fair Elections programs in eight states, the proposed law would require that participating candidates turn down special interest money and accept only $100-or-less donations from their constituents. Candidates who reach a qualifying threshold of 1,500 in-state donations would then be eligible to receive sufficient matching funds to run a serious campaign. This would dramatically reduce the influence of special interests, including unions and corporations. And Fair Elections would open the election process to many more Americans who currently have no opportunity to seek public office for lack of funds.

The high court also upheld a more sweeping disclosure requirement. Any corporation spending more than $10,000 a year on electioneering efforts must publicly disclose the names of individual contributors.

The Supreme Court did not jettison all campaign finance restrictions. Corporations and unions are still prohibited from making direct contributions to federal candidates. Such contributions must be made either by individuals or through regulated political action committees.In addition, although corporations may now spend money to make a political point during election season, the high court has strongly endorsed – by an 8-to-1 vote – disclaimer and disclosure requirements within the federal campaign finance law.That means that when corporations place a political ad on television or radio within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, it must include the disclaimer: "______ is responsible for the content of this advertising."This disclaimer requirement may deter many corporations from engaging in the kind of vicious political attack ads that some analysts suggest will now become commonplace.

U.S. officials identify Balochistan as a critical center of Taliban and al-Qaeda activity.  Many observers believe that high-profile al-Qaeda figures and ranking Taliban members, including Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar, have fled Afghanistan or Pakistan’s tribal areas for sanctuary in Balochistan.  The provincial capital of Quetta is believed to serve as a critical hub for financing and organizing Taliban and al-Qaeda operations

Islamabad worries that an escalation of the U.S.-led campaign in Helmand and other parts of Afghanistan will compel Afghan militants to use Balochistan as a temporary sanctuary to evade direct engagements with U.S. forces.  Afghan militants may also use Balochistan as a staging ground for attacks against NATO forces in Helmand and beyond.  In other words, Pakistan fears that Balochistan may go the way of FATA and the NWFP following the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan,

The problems affecting Balochistan are severe, considering that the region serves as one of the crucial logistical hubs sustaining the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.  Convoys ferrying fuel, vehicles, arms, food, and other crucial items to U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan travel through Balochistan. 

Analyzing reported spending, the Washington Post finds that Republicans have spent at least $100,000 in 77 different congressional races (nearly twice the number of seats they need to gain control of the House), compared with 43 races in which Democrats have spent that much.Looked at across regions of the country, Republicans and their supporters are outspending their Democratic counterparts by 53 percent, the newspaper reports: $74.6 million to $39.7 million, based on Federal Election Commission filings. At the same time, millionaire and billionaire candidates – Republicans Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and Linda McMahon among them – are digging into their personal pocketbooks to battle their opponents on the airwaves.

Analyzing reported spending, the Washington Post finds that Republicans have spent at least $100,000 in 77 different congressional races (nearly twice the number of seats they need to gain control of the House), compared with 43 races in which Democrats have spent that much.

The bill must now go to a conference committee to resolve significant differences between the House and Senate versions. And history shows that agreement is far from guaranteed. In fact, just last year, a bill reforming the Indian Health Service died when the conference committee couldn't overcome its differences on abortion. Similarly, in 2007, bills dealing with issues as varied as campaign-finance reform, corporate pensions and closing tax loopholes passed both chambers but never became law. .author_pub2 a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tanner.jpg) no-repeat -110px 0; } .author_pub2a a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tanner.jpg) no-repeat 0 0; }

It's important to remember that the House bill passed with just three votes to spare and the Senate bill received exactly the 60 votes needed for passage. Democratic leaders have little room to maneuver as they try to resolve such issues as:

The Public Option: The Senate rejected the concept of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) made it clear that inclusion of the so-called public option would cause them to join a Republican filibuster. They are justifiably concerned that a taxpayer-subsidized government plan would drive private insurance out of the market and lead to a single-payer government-run system. But the House did include a public option -- and retaining it has become the top priority for the Dems' liberal wing. Public-option advocates seemed willing to go along with a proposed Medicare "buy-in" for those 55 to 64, but even that compromise was dropped from the final Senate bill. Now Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn), among others, has made it clear his vote is in doubt if the final bill does not include some form of public option. And such liberal activist groups as Moveon.org have promised to spend the holiday vacation pressuring their allies to fight for the public option.