Democrats move to counter high court campaign finance ruling

[cal04]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/11/democrats-move-to-counter-high-court-campaign-finance-ruling/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%2Brss%2Fcnn_politicalticker%2B&fbid=P6-tRRJtWbC

Top congressional Democrats unveiled legislation Thursday that would ban foreign-controlled companies and firms receiving either government contracts or federal bailout funds from spending money on U.S. elections.

The bill also would require the head of any corporation running a political ad to appear in the commercial to say that he or she "approves this message" - just as candidates themselves do today.

The measure is designed to mitigate the impact of last month's controversial Supreme Court campaign finance ruling, which overturned a long-standing ban on corporations and unions using their treasury funds to run presidential and congressional election ads.

(snip)
On Thursday, one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, called the ruling a "corrosive" and "infuriating decision."


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/80745-dems-look-to-crack-down-on-corporate-political-spending-ahead-of-midterms

[Ozymanithrax]

1. How many votes do they need to pass...

If it is 60, this bill is toast.

But I don't think this type of bill can be passed by reconciliation. Hope I'm wrong.

What am I saying? Democrats don't use no stinking reconciliation.

[thunder rising]

2. What about the tax cuts ... there has to be tax cuts to solve the problem.

It does nothing about foreign money nor cross funding where a corporation hires or funds another to do it's dirty work. The producer company has no problem pasting boiler plate disclaimer from Joe Nobody.