Lawmakers call for restrictions on political ads

[alp227]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Corporations and unions would have to identify themselves on political ads they bankroll, and the CEO or top official would have to make "I approve this message" statements under legislation being introduced in Congress Thursday.

The measures are a direct response to a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court in January that upheld the First Amendment rights of such groups to spend money on campaign ads - a decision that greatly enhances their ability to influence federal elections.

"At a time when the public's fears about the influence of special interests were already high, this decision stacks the deck against the average American even more," Sen. Charles Schumer told a news conference on the steps of the Supreme Court building.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042901497.html?wprss=rss_politics

[w4rma]

1. Good. Don't let them hide and lie. (nt)

[denverbill]

2. Wow. I like this, especially the CEO having to say it. n/t

[Rozlee]

3. Love this. Too bad it probably doesn't stand a popsicle's chance in Hell of passing.

Especially if Rethugs can keep putting it off until after the fall elections when they might pick up a few more seats. But, you never know. Somewhere along the way, these last couple of months, our President grew a pair. Everytime I see him arguing with Retardicans, I can almost hear "No more Mr. Nice Guy" being belted out in the background. He sure is different from the too-nice fella we were angsting about at the beginning of the year. Think I'm complaining? Uh, that would be a no. Even Reid's been showing a slightly stronger bladder lately (He didn't have anywhere to go but up). And Nancy Pelosi? I can practically hear those brass balls clanking every time the woman walks. She single-handedly handed the Republicans their heads on a platter over HCR. Maybe Obama and our Democrats may pull these campaign limits off after all. I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I won't hold my breath.

[PSPS]

4. "and unions"

The phrase that's always a telltale sign of bias.

[emulatorloo]

5. Unions are part of the Supreme Court Decision. Corporations and Unions

So of course both have to addressed in this law.

[paulsby]

6. yea, but uncomfortable truths are "bias"

i guess

[PSPS]

7. Maybe so, but it's a red herring

If you add up all the money for political ads from all unions combined, it's dwarfed by the virtually unlimited sums of money corporations have at their disposal.