Here is a posting from GovTrack about H.R. 5129 2019. I fully support it. Corporations have no business in the political arena.
Ban Corporate PACs Act would do just that.
Should corporate money be removed from politics, or is it a necessary component of free speech?
Context
Some corporations set up or fund affiliated organizations called Political Action Committees, or PACs, to fund advertisements and other expenditures intended to influence political or policy outcomes.
For last year’s midterm elections, 1,732 corporate PACs spent $404.8 million. That’s more than for any of the other biggest PAC categories: labor, trade, membership, or cooperative. Democrats decry this corporate money as corrupting.
Others note that corporate PACs are already limited in their potential and scope, since their $5,000 donation cap to an individual candidate has remained unchanged since 1974. (So-called “super PACs,” created by the Supreme Court’s 2010 deregulatory decision Citizens United v. FEC, have no such monetary limits. Corporations can contribute to super PACs and this bill doesn’t appear to affect that.)
What the bill does
The Ban Corporate PACs Act would fulfill its title, by eliminating the ability of for-profit companies or corporations to fund an organization intended to influence policy. The bill would also eliminate any existing corporate PACs within one year.
It was introduced in the House on November 15 as bill number H.R. 5129, by Rep. Max Rose (D-NY11).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that corporate money influences election and policy outcomes, when the only variable should be the will of the American voters.
“Corporate PACs flood this city with contributions, but it’s not the American people’s priorities they have in mind — it’s their own bottom lines,” Rep. Rose said in a press release. “That’s wrong and at the root of Washington corruption. That’s why we must send a clear, unmistakable message to the American people that we are here to fight for them and only them — not the special interests and corporate PACs.”
What opponents say
Opponents counter that the fear of corporate money in politics is overblown, and indeed that it’s a protected right as a subset of the First Amendment’s free speech clause.
“It’s not corporate money or campaign donations that help keep incumbency rates high,” Ed Krayewski wrote for Reason. “Through earmarks and other legislative means, members of Congress can direct federal funds to their districts. The longer they’re in office, the better they get at bringing funds to their district, the more likely constituents are to vote to re-elect their representative whether they agree with his politics or not, simply because the legislator brings home the bacon.”
“Taxpayer money in politics seems a lot more corrosive than corporate money,” Krayewski continued. “Politicians have effectively unlimited access to use taxpayer money in order to enrich themselves and ingratiate themselves with their constituents.”
Odds of passage
The bill has attracted four House cosponsors, all Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in the House Administration Committee.
Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled Senate.
No comments:
Post a Comment