DeLauro And Himes Fighting Citizens United

by Categorized: Washington Date:

\"Rep.Reps. DeLauro and Himes announced campaign finance legislation that would limit donations to Super PACs, aimed at countering the level of corporate influence in elections allowed by the Supreme Court in a 2010 ruling that declared political spending by corporations protected speech under the First Amendment.

\"Himes\”With an ill-advised spate of judicial activism, five Supreme Court justices struck down the distinction between individuals and corporations in election law and opened the floodgates to a hostile corporate takeover of our democratic process,” said DeLauro, speaking of the majority opinion in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. \”The Restoring Confidence in Our Democracy Act would counter the Court’s blatant overreaching and stem the tide of special interest influence over our political system. I am proud to cosponsor this bill and I hope we can ensure the people’s voices are always heard more strongly in the halls of Congress than the dollars of special interests.\”

The legislation, which was introduced and subsequently died in the last Congress, has 11 co-sponsors and proposes limiting donations to reduce the presence of Super PACs in elections.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

20 thoughts on “DeLauro And Himes Fighting Citizens United

  1. Richard

    I love DeLauro’s logic.

    Public Sector Unions and Non-Profits should be able to contribute but corporations should not.

    If Corporations contribute then Romney will beat Obama, McMahon will beat Murphy, and Wayne Winsley will beat DeLauro. The sky is falling.

    Where was DeLauro in December 2009 when this story was running? Counting her crooked campaign cash?

    No appeal in EMILY’s List case

    The Obama Administration has notified Congress that it will not ask the Supreme Court to revive a set of government regulations seeking to curb high-volume campaign spending by non-profit advocacy groups.

    1. Richard

      That Emily’s List decision set the precedent for Citizen’s United. At the time the non-profit case was viewed as favorable to the Democrats cause and the Delauros of the world were puckering up and kissing each other celebrating their infernal and diabolical brilliance.

      1. Jeb Potchagalloop

        Richie Rich: the act speaks of limiting donations not eliminating them. And unions and non-profits should all be under the same constraints.

        Wouldn’t you agree – in all fairness?

      2. Kim

        billyboy in personality number 14 here as Jeb P. Must be nice to have the time to sit around all day logging in under 14 different names just to spread bull.

        Must be a recipient

  2. johngaltwhereru

    If individuals, aka people, are not corporations or vice versa, then who writes the corporate checks to the IRS for taxes owed?

    More importantly, who goes to jail if that tax check isn’t written?

  3. Wildbill

    Johnny Boy… And I thought you were going to throw some heavy weight zingers but let me eagerly weigh in.

    To your first question, a person writes a check in the name of the corporation. In other words, he represents the interests of the corporation. He is not representing the interests of himself. And if he is the delegated person to represent the corporation, then he goes to jail as well as any who have conspired to cheat the government from the right to collect taxes.

    A corporation is an entity unto itself. It has its own interests. Unregulated donations can and do corrupt the political process. As do unions and non-profits.

    They all should have regulation applied equally.

    As a Libertarian, you would agree with the fairness of the equality. But since indeed you don’t believe in taxes, your statement as a whole is in a hole. You have illustrated a conundrum.

    I win. Dinner is on you.

    1. johngaltwhereru


      I believe any campaign contribution, by any person or entity, to any candidate or affiliated organization, should be classified and punished as a bribe.

      That being said, your Corporation argument holds no water. You say a corporation acts in it’s own interest. No it doesn’t. A corporation is a business structure. It cannot act, it can make no decisions and it has no self interest. Like a gun, it is an inanimate entity that is useless without control by people. The interest of a corporation is the financial well being of the shareholders (people) who own the corporation.

      Finally, I do believe in taxes. Just not income taxation, corporate taxation, corrupt and discriminatory selective taxation and political cronyism based taxation.

  4. Wildbill

    Dr Picklehear,

    I hope you realize that your head has been mismanaged for so long that you hardly make any hay. I just saw A Clockwork Orange last evening. I think you might be a good candidate for behavior modification. Make you into a screaming liberal one way or another.

    I didn’t say that a corp “acts in its own interest.” I said that a person represents the interest of a corp.

    Read my lips.

    1. Kim

      you’re an idiot billyboy. Don’t you get dizzy when your head is spinning around so fast your lips are kissing your own behind?

  5. johngaltwhereru

    “A corporation is an entity unto itself. It has its own interests.” That is from the 3rd paragraph of your post above.

    Forgive me if I was reading your lips incorrectly.

    1. wildbill

      you are splitting hairs in an effort to win a debate contest.

      a corp has its own interests and those interests are controlled by individuals. as such, these individuals are not representing themselves.

      what is your problem? still trying for that “gotcha ” moment that is amply rewarded for you when your pal kim the men’s room guy echoes back an encouragement.

      1. Johngaltwhereru


        I have no problem. You are just wrong. Corporations are people. Just like unions are people.

        How do decision making individuals that represent a corporation act in the corporations best interest without acting in their own best interest?

      2. Kim

        there’s that men’s room obsession again from billyboy – what a disturbed individual you are (stike that: not ‘individual’ but ‘community’ given your multiple personalities).

        As predicted, you seem to have diverted from the the ‘nicer, kinder’ fool you were trying to push off on the readers for a couple of days. Surprise, surprise!

        Facts and spot-on commentary are not ‘splitting hairs’, by the way. Just once you could try admitting that you’ve been bested or even misspoke, but it takes a secure, honest person to do that.

          1. Kim

            Kim above was the imposter willybillybobillysusanfrilly. Nothing better to do. He is driving me crazy.

  6. wholesale cheap oakley sunglasses

    The act of paying for branded backpacks gives some too much power in controling how much advertising is done on the bag. Don’t go too far; a bag with needless advertisements is one that will soon be dropped. Instead make the bag primarily for the end user, and then second for your own business to advertise. A quick logo or phrase will surely suffice.

Comments are closed.