Repub Josh Hawley introduces bill to limit corporate $ in politics, which in effect, would reverse the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision

[JEDI]

Mitch McConnell warns GOP senators they’ll face ‘incoming’ if they back Hawley bill to limit corporate giving in campaigns | CNN Politics

lite.cnn.com

Hawley’s new bill, called the Ending Corporate Influence on Elections Act, is aimed at reversing the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that loosened campaign finance laws – an effort that aligns the conservative Missouri Republican with many Democrats. Hawley’s bill would ban publicly traded corporations from making independent expenditures and political advertisements – and ban those publicly traded companies from giving money to super PACs.

In an interview, Hawley defended his bill and said that corporate influence should be limited in elections.

“I think that’s wrong,” Hawley told CNN. “I think it’s wrong as an original matter. I think it’s warping our politics, and I see no reason for conservatives to defend it. It’s wrong as a matter of the original meaning of the Constitution. It is bad for our elections. It’s bad for our voters. And I just think on principle, we ought to be concerned.”


I had to do a double take that Hawley was a Repub.
Never in my lifetime would i have imagined a Repub sponsoring such a bill.

It's an uphill fight. Even with all the Dems, i dont think he has 60votes to overcome McDonell's expected filibuster.
And even if he does, no way will this pass the House

 

[Thump553]

You know what they say about a stuck clock.

But for the life of me I don't understand Hawley pushing something like this-isn't he hardline MAGA?

 

[nakedfrog]

Well done there, but I'll be surprised if it goes anywhere.

 

[Pohemi]

You know what they say about a stuck clock.

This was my thought. At least he's finally had an idea or statement that was legitimately good governing and good for the country. And I doubt it will be passed but at least it's getting brought up, and by a conservative for once.

 

[soulcougher73]

obviously a deep fake by AI. No conservative would say such a silly thing.

 

[Paratus]

Are we sure this doesn’t have an exception for some benefactor of his?

 

[akugami]

obviously a deep fake by AI. No conservative would say such a silly thing.

I agree with limiting campaign contributions from corporations.

But regarding it being an AI deep fake, have you given thought to maybe this was after one of those GOP drug orgies that Madison Cawthorn was always getting invited to? This was one of those joke bills that they pass around to laugh at, and Hawley accidentally submitted it.

 

[APU_Fusion]

If true and it has no poison pills, give credit where credit is due. Good bill. 🤷‍♂️

 

[Indus]

You know what they say about a stuck clock.

But for the life of me I don't understand Hawley pushing something like this-isn't he hardline MAGA?

He is hardline MAGA and doesn't want to bow to lefty zionist corporations putting out filthy marriage equality propaganda or lgbtq equality ideas.

He's thinking fuck Bud Light and the cloud they rolled in on!

 

[MrSquished]

He's one of the bigger maga doodies, So this is surprising. But honestly there are so many piece of shit maga these days that eventually one's going to have a good idea here or there.

Look at McConnell showing how much they're beholden to dark money. Unfortunately there won't be 10 Republican centers that will make something decent happen that's this good.

It would be nice and then watch the house shoot it down but either way. Would be nice to have the Senate pass it

 

[Indus]

He's one of the bigger maga doodies, So this is surprising. But honestly there are so many piece of shit maga these days that eventually one's going to have a good idea here or there.

Look at McConnell showing how much they're beholden to dark money. Unfortunately there won't be 10 Republican centers that will make something decent happen that's this good.

It would be nice and then watch the house shoot it down but either way. Would be nice to have the Senate pass it

I think it passes once McConnel is done.

Like lets be honest.. after McCain died, did you see anyone questioning Trump in the Senate?

Trump wants this to pass as he hates those lefty corporations!

 

[Moonbeam]

Does Justice Thomas need donations from corporations or does he just have a hand under the table?

 

[UNCjigga]

The devil’s in the details—this would have zero net effect on the largest billionaire mega donors sticking with the MAGA wing of the party—as they are all using family wealth from ownership of private companies (Koch Industries, various casinos, oil & gas drillers, various hedge funds and other family empires.)

It *could* have an effect on the publicly traded companies that are more likely to pander to corporate social responsibility concerns—I.e. those accused of “going woke”. Thus, it could allow Republican lawmakers to target companies whose speech they disagree with (ala DeSantis) and limit their ability to back opposing candidates.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Unless it bans anonymous PACs and forces identity of all donors over $X,000 in contributions .....

 

[brycejones]

The devil’s in the details—this would have zero net effect on the largest billionaire mega donors sticking with the MAGA wing of the party—as they are all using family wealth from ownership of private companies (Koch Industries, various casinos, oil & gas drillers, various hedge funds and other family empires.)

It *could* have an effect on the publicly traded companies that are more likely to pander to corporate social responsibility concerns—I.e. those accused of “going woke”. Thus, it could allow Republican lawmakers to target companies whose speech they disagree with (ala DeSantis) and limit their ability to back opposing candidates.

Came here to post this.

It’s a shit bill that targets the “enemies” of the extreme right.

 

[Pens1566]

Only impacts publicly traded, for profit companies. Privately held and non-profits can keep on with the unlimited $$$.

He's an asshole, and only going after opponents. Fuck him.

 

[darkswordsman17]

If true and it has no poison pills, give credit where credit is due. Good bill. 🤷‍♂️

This is coming from people that are actively trying to prevent the former President from being held accountable for his criminal actions. There's gonna be loopholes big enough to fit Turmp's fatass through and every right wing dicksucking sycophant he cant attach to his asshole.

Only impacts publicly traded, for profit companies. Privately held and non-profits can keep on with the unlimited $$$.

He's an asshole, and only going after opponents. Fuck him.

Ah, wouldn't surprise me that he puts limits on corporations but basically allows private citizens unlimited fund dispersal, likely with strict privacy protections or bans having to report it as what it is (meaning the rich can "donate" the money to campaigns and claim it as charity or some shit).

 

[zinfamous]

The devil’s in the details—this would have zero net effect on the largest billionaire mega donors sticking with the MAGA wing of the party—as they are all using family wealth from ownership of private companies (Koch Industries, various casinos, oil & gas drillers, various hedge funds and other family empires.)

It *could* have an effect on the publicly traded companies that are more likely to pander to corporate social responsibility concerns—I.e. those accused of “going woke”. Thus, it could allow Republican lawmakers to target companies whose speech they disagree with (ala DeSantis) and limit their ability to back opposing candidates.

ah, there it is.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Y'all's pattin' the Josher on the back wayyyy too quick-like.

You KNOW he's got a hook.

 

[Zorba]

You know what they say about a stuck clock.

But for the life of me I don't understand Hawley pushing something like this-isn't he hardline MAGA?

Only limits publicly traded companies. I believe many of the huge GOP donor companies are privately held. Seems like a weird designation to make unless you think it hurts others and helps you.

 

[ksheets]

We all remember Hawley- wasn't he the one that gave the Sieg Heil salute to Drumps supporters on January 6th- and then was caught on video running like a little bitch when they broke in?

 

[Pohemi]

I took a lil more time to skim through the bill last night, and yep...Hawley can go fuck himself, as usual. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt on the summary of the bill before reading it, but I should have known better with his shitheaded MAGAt ass.

 

[MrSquished]

I took a lil more time to skim through the bill last night, and yep...Hawley can go fuck himself, as usual. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt on the summary of the bill before reading it, but I should have known better with his shitheaded MAGAt ass.

ditto, besides the fact I didn't read more details, just learned from this thread

 

[HomerJS]

My answer to all political contributions is simple. Blind contributions.

We have corruption because of lobbyists obtaining PAC money are known by the candidates/party thereby giving them an open door to Congress. Make all political contributions blind. This mean all donations are deposited into a clearing house. The names of the donors are not revealed to the recipient. It doesn't violate 1A because the donors are giving money to the candidate/party that best represents their views. The recipient is not allowed the identity of the donor. This takes the pressure off catering to high $ donors and pushed them more to represent the views of their district. Violation of this wall of separation would be a felony.

The immediate results would be contributions going down but so what? Election season needs to be shorter anyway.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I'd go a step beyond that. All contributions go to the Party, not to the candidate, The total then gets divvied up equally between that Party's candidates, who then get a more equal chance to make their case using their own words and deeds rather than simply the ability to buy more ad space and air time.