Sen Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduces Ending Corporate Influence on Elections Act to curb Citizens United; Mitch warns off other GOP Senators

[essentialsaltes]

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

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell bluntly warned Republican senators in a private meeting not to sign on to a bill from Sen. Josh Hawley aimed at limiting corporate money bankrolling high-powered outside groups, telling them that many of them won their seats thanks to the powerful super PAC the Kentucky Republican has long controlled.

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.

“I think [loose control of corporate spending in elections is] 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.”

--

Interesting to see Hawley 'run across' the aisle to support an idea typically associated with Democrats.

 

[JustOneWay]

Interesting to see Hawley 'run across' the aisle to support an idea typically associated with Democrats.

Talk is cheap.

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm not sure such a bill would even be constitutional though.

 

[DaisyDay]

I never thought that I'd be on Team Hawley.

 

[DaisyDay]

I'm not sure such a bill would even be constitutional though.

He does have a JD from Yale but he was president of his class' Federalist Society...

 

[essentialsaltes]

IANAL, but the focus on public companies is interesting. It may be looking to peel away some of Citizens United:

In this dispute, the opposing views essentially discussed differing types of entities: Stevens [in his dissent] focused his argument on large, publicly held corporations, while the majority, and particularly Justice Scalia's concurring opinion, placed an emphasis on small, closely held corporations and non-profits.

Hawley's move might then be seen as an act to favor the speech of large private companies, e.g. Koch Industries and Publix.

 

[Arcangl86]

IANAL, but the focus on public companies is interesting. It may be looking to peel away some of Citizens United:

In this dispute, the opposing views essentially discussed differing types of entities: Stevens [in his dissent] focused his argument on large, publicly held corporations, while the majority, and particularly Justice Scalia's concurring opinion, placed an emphasis on small, closely held corporations and non-profits.

Hawley's move might then be seen as an act to favor the speech of large private companies, e.g. Koch Industries and Publix.

Considering he is promoting this as an "anti-woke" measure there might be something to that.

 

[Fantine]

Keep it up, Senator Hawley, and you will be forgiven for racing across the halls of the Capitol with the insurrectionists in hot pursuit.

 

[durangodawood]

Hawley may see private corps are more likely to bankroll Rs and publicly traded corps more likely to go for Ds.

I wonder if theres anything to that?

 

[DaisyDay]

IANAL, but the focus on public companies is interesting. It may be looking to peel away some of Citizens United:

In this dispute, the opposing views essentially discussed differing types of entities: Stevens [in his dissent] focused his argument on large, publicly held corporations, while the majority, and particularly Justice Scalia's concurring opinion, placed an emphasis on small, closely held corporations and non-profits.

Hawley's move might then be seen as an act to favor the speech of large private companies, e.g. Koch Industries and Publix.

Oh. If that's the plan, I quit the team.

 

[rambot]

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

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell bluntly warned Republican senators in a private meeting not to sign on to a bill from Sen. Josh Hawley aimed at limiting corporate money bankrolling high-powered outside groups, telling them that many of them won their seats thanks to the powerful super PAC the Kentucky Republican has long controlled.

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.

“I think [loose control of corporate spending in elections is] 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.”

--

Interesting to see Hawley 'run across' the aisle to support an idea typically associated with Democrats.

I mean no disrespect but from an way outside, I would NOT say that Democrats "typically" would support something like this. Perhaps I'm too cynical but has any Democrat actually put forward a bill to shuttle off C.U?


I can say I am 100% shocked that Hawley would so something I so heartily agree with.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I mean no disrespect but from an way outside, I would NOT say that Democrats "typically" would support something like this. Perhaps I'm too cynical but has any Democrat actually put forward a bill to shuttle off C.U?

Obviously, there's a limit to what legislation can do to overturn SCOTUS, but...

"The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United is wrong and should be overturned by a constitutional amendment – but we can’t wait to limit its pernicious effect. As president, Biden will work to enact legislation ensuring that SuperPACs are wholly independent of campaigns and political parties, from establishment, to fundraising and spending." -- Biden campaign promise.

--

This goal of preventing coordination between candidates and super PACs was addressed in the voting and elections bill known as H.R. 1, which passed the House in March with only Democrats voting in favor.

That bill includes "robust provisions to ensure that super PACs operate independently of candidates and political parties," said Brendan M. Fischer, director of the federal reform program with the Campaign Legal Center.

[Another part of the bill would match small donor funds with public money; helping to reduce dependence on corporate dollars by increasing the power of the little guy.
Yet another would require greater disclosure of PAC money, so we'd at least know who was buying the election.
Lastly, and perhaps most directly albeit feebly, "The bill expresses support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC" ]

But the Senate vote didn't reach the 60 for cloture -- 50-50 on party lines.

 

[JSRG]

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

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell bluntly warned Republican senators in a private meeting not to sign on to a bill from Sen. Josh Hawley aimed at limiting corporate money bankrolling high-powered outside groups, telling them that many of them won their seats thanks to the powerful super PAC the Kentucky Republican has long controlled.

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.

“I think [loose control of corporate spending in elections is] 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.”

--

Interesting to see Hawley 'run across' the aisle to support an idea typically associated with Democrats.

How exactly can a bill or law reverse a Supreme Court decision? A Supreme Court decision regarding constitutionality overrides any bill or law; this can only be changed via a constitutional amendment or a subsequent Supreme Court decision.

Is the implication that the plan is to pass a law that violates Citizens United with the goal of bringing it to the Supreme Court in the hopes it'll overturn the previous decision?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

He does have a JD from Yale but he was president of his class' Federalist Society...

To be fair, people can be smart and a member of the "other" political persuasion for a variety of whatever reasons they have. (some sincere, some not so sincere)

It all depends on how people prioritize various issues.

 

[Pommer]

How exactly can a bill or law reverse a Supreme Court decision? A Supreme Court decision regarding constitutionality overrides any bill or law; this can only be changed via a constitutional amendment or a subsequent Supreme Court decision.

Is the implication that the plan is to pass a law that violates Citizens United with the goal of bringing it to the Supreme Court in the hopes it'll overturn the previous decision?

You tailor the bill to fit the parameters of the SCOTUS decision*.
While we lay-folk have short-handed the Citizens United case as “money=speech”, the legal framework will have left a significant chunk of landscape with which the Congress can limit money in politics.

*even if it is crafted just the same as the law that was struck down in Citizens, it can allow the court to revisit its decision there and rule as per the dissent by the notorious RBG

 

[DaisyDay]

To be fair, people can be smart and a member of the "other" political persuasion for a variety of whatever reasons they have. (some sincere, some not so sincere)

It all depends on how people prioritize various issues.

No kidding?!

You know the old canard "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity/ignorance? Hawley doesn't have that out.

 

[Danny&Annie&theChristmas]

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

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell bluntly warned Republican senators in a private meeting not to sign on to a bill from Sen. Josh Hawley aimed at limiting corporate money bankrolling high-powered outside groups, telling them that many of them won their seats thanks to the powerful super PAC the Kentucky Republican has long controlled.

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.

“I think [loose control of corporate spending in elections is] 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.”

--

Interesting to see Hawley 'run across' the aisle to support an idea typically associated with Democrats.

The corporate collective will never let this happen.......just like in my book.

 

[Fantine]

If you believe Citizens United is "settled precedent," all I can say is that that ship sailed last year when Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Here are parts of Justice Stevens' dissent on Citizens United (see article for entire analysis). Obviously, although he was the oldest of the justices, he had more common sense than the majority put together.

"Stevens was just warming up. His dissent was ninety pages, the longest of his career. He questioned every premise of Kennedy’s opinion, starting with its contempt for stare decisis, the rule of precedent. He went on to refute Kennedy’s repeated invocations of “censorship” and the “banning” of free speech. The case was merely about corporate-funded commercials shortly before elections. Corporations could run as many commercials as they liked during other periods, and employees of the corporations (by forming a political-action committee) could run ads at any time.


Stevens was especially offended by Kennedy’s blithe assertion that corporations and human beings had identical rights under the First Amendment. “The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare,” Stevens wrote. “Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.” Congress and the courts had drawn distinctions between corporations and people for decades, Stevens wrote, noting that, “at the federal level, the express distinction between corporate and individual political spending on elections stretches back to 1907, when Congress passed the Tillman Act.”'

How Chief Justice John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens United Decision

By having the case reargued, Roberts put the liberals in a box and transformed the decision’s impact on political campaigns.

www.newyorker.com

 

[Arcangl86]

That is one thing I loved about Stevens. He was able to play the originalist game just as well as the conservatives but to a different end result. Too bad political ideology was the deciding factor many of those times instead of true originalist analysis.

 

[Brihaha]

The corporate collective will never let this happen.......just like in my book.

Neither will our politicians. They like to manipulate with words...just like Hawley is probably doing.