I would like to start by saying that I am grateful to have organizations like OpenCongress looking out for the common people. OpenCongress does phenomenal research on our behalf. Most importantly, they download the legislative bills in a readable format. They are able to obtain information that you and I couldn't manage on our own. I thank God they exist, along with OpenSecrets, Taxpayers for Common Sense, GovTrac, Judicial Watch, SunLight Foundation, ProPublica just to name a few. I have provided links that will direct you to these organizations on the right hand side of this blog.
I am sharing a Twitter exchange I had with OpenCongress last week. This is a hot topic right now. Let me tell you, I too was reeling when I first heard about the SCOTUS decision. Mainly because of the way the MEDIA was reporting it. But after much research and reading, I was able to step back and understand this decision from an OBJECTIVE point of view. It is very healthy to debate / discuss key issue's, listening to ALL sides of the argument / topic. I enjoy it more after I've gone straight to the HEART of the matter... reading the information for my very own understanding. I'm merely sharing this Twitter exchange I had with another very passionate person to give you a different perspective on this subject. I've posted some additional information for you before the Twitter exchange.
"Essentially what the SCOTUS ruled was that corporations are the same as citizens in terms of the protections afforded by the Constitution and that they have fundamental rights just as citizens have, among them being the right to express their opinions about government actions, programs and candidates. The court held that the First Amendment's protection for Freedom of Speech and the Right to Petition the Government is just as much a right of an organization as it is a person." [source: Beaufort Observer 01/25/10]
“The First Amendment has been vindicated by the High Court. Judicial Watch believes that better enforcement of bribery and extortion laws are key to fighting government corruption – not self-serving restrictions on free speech by politicians. Allowing full participation in our nation’s political process for citizens acting through corporations will do more to hold corrupt politicians accountable than any campaign finance restriction or bureaucratic regulation.” [source: Judicial Watch 01/21/10]
"The SCOTUS Majority wrote: With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests…This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages." [source: SunLight Foundation 01/21/10]
"Essentially what the SCOTUS ruled was that corporations are the same as citizens in terms of the protections afforded by the Constitution and that they have fundamental rights just as citizens have, among them being the right to express their opinions about government actions, programs and candidates. The court held that the First Amendment's protection for Freedom of Speech and the Right to Petition the Government is just as much a right of an organization as it is a person." [source: Beaufort Observer 01/25/10]
“The First Amendment has been vindicated by the High Court. Judicial Watch believes that better enforcement of bribery and extortion laws are key to fighting government corruption – not self-serving restrictions on free speech by politicians. Allowing full participation in our nation’s political process for citizens acting through corporations will do more to hold corrupt politicians accountable than any campaign finance restriction or bureaucratic regulation.” [source: Judicial Watch 01/21/10]
"The SCOTUS Majority wrote: With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests…This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages." [source: SunLight Foundation 01/21/10]
To read the court's decision click HERE.
****************************************************************
OpenCongress tweeted: Alan Grayson: PAC-Buster!: http://bit.ly/bs9pLC ...worth the click for the pic alone. promise.
12:13 PM Jan 29th from web
Mononoke__Hime @OpenCongress: I'm sorry Donny, need to chime in. Alan Grayson (D-FL) is a flagrant IDIOT! I don't take anything he says or does seriously.
12:24 PM Jan 29th from web in reply to OpenCongress
OpenCongress @Mononoke__Hime: I'm actually just pondering the bill's legitimacy here. Certainly sounds like political grandstanding, but is it more?
12:27 PM Jan 29th from web in reply to Mononoke__Hime
Mononoke__Hime @OpenCongress: The SCOTUS decision actually opens up the playing field. Campaign endorsement will NO LONGER be limited to the Corporate MEDIA.
12:48 PM Jan 29th from web in reply to OpenCongress
Mononoke__Hime @OpenCongress: A corporation is a legal entity. Besides, corporations have to answer to their shareholders and consumers.
12:54 PM Jan 29th from web in reply to OpenCongress
Mononoke__Hime @OpenCongress: Therefore, a corporation will have a thin line to walk when deciding who or what they're endorsing. Just my two cents. ;)
12:56 PM Jan 29th from web in reply to OpenCongress
OpenCongress @Mononoke__Hime: private entity answering to their constituency doesn't always mean being in line with the public interest, wouldnt you say?
1:00 PM Jan 29th from web in reply to Mononoke__Hime
Mononoke__Hime @OpenCongress: General Electric et al who own MEDIA entities have already been doing what you're suggesting. [ie; Huffington Post, LA Times, NY Times, ABC, NBC etc.]
1:16 PM Jan 29th from web in reply to OpenCongress
Mononoke__Hime @OpenCongress: On the bright side of the SCOTUS decision Americans will have to learn to think for themselves as opposed to being spoonfed info.
1:18 PM Jan 29th from web in reply to OpenCongress
Mononoke__Hime @OpenCongress: What's the difference between Oprah and other entertainers USING their CLOUT to endorse a campaign vs. a corporation?
1:25 PM Jan 29th from web in reply to OpenCongress
Mononoke__Hime @OpenCongress: Is their BIASED influence in line with the public interest as you suggested? Just food for thought...
1:26 PM Jan 29th from web in reply to OpenCongress
No comments:
Post a Comment