good question Supreme Court on corporate rights

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Fritz Mills <fritz () fritzmills com>
> Date: January 25, 2010 9:03:52 PM EST
> To: dave () farber net, ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: (Resend) Re: [IP] Supreme Court on corporate rights

> The question I haven't heard anyone address is how this decision  
> affects 501(c)3 political speech rights. Does this mean, by  
> implication, that Planned Parenthood can now buy ad time without  
> risking loss of its tax status? And if not, why not? IANAL.
>
>
> At 1:03 PM -0500 1/25/10, Dave Farber wrote:
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> > > From: Mary Shaw <mary.shaw () gmail com>
> > > Date: January 25, 2010 1:01:20 PM EST
> > > To: dave () farber net
> > > Subject: Re: (Resend) Re: [IP] Supreme Court on corporate rights
> >
> > > OK, so the flood gates are open to corporate contributions.
> > >
> > > Sunshine is a good antidote to shady dealings.  So, how about
> > >
> > > (a) beefing up the transparency rules so the actual donor is  
> > > shown, not the intermediaries with names involving "fair" and  
> > > "wise" and "citizens for".
> > >
> > > (b) showing the biggest donors as part of the identification of  
> > > the legislator, which is presumably provided so people don't  
> > > recognize the name know who he represents.  So instead of "Harry  
> > > Reid (D-NY)" we'd see the identification "Harry Reid (D-NY, MGM  
> > > Grand $153K, Weitz&Luxenberg $89K, Harrahs $79K)" or perhaps  
> > > "Harry Reid (D-NY Lawyers $1700K, Securities $696K, Casinos $571K)"
> > >
> > > (data from http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922 
> > > )
> >
> > > Mary



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com