Quantcast
Connect with us

Cornyn: Effect of Supreme Court campaign finance ruling ‘overstated’

Published

on

Sen. John Cornyn wants everyone to calm down about a Supreme Court decision that would allow corporations to pour an unlimited amount of cash into campaign advertisements. Cornyn believes the effect of the decision has been “overstated.”

“I think [the impact has] been overstated,” Cornyn (R-TX) told Fox News’ Chris Wallace.

Apparently Cornyn thinks that contributions to campaigns by individual donors is more of a threat than unchecked money from large corporations. “Frankly, there has been an explosion of money into federal races for public office since, well, in the last ten years since campaign finance reform. It hasn’t done anything to stop the flow of money in,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“President Obama spent more money in his campaign in 2008 than Senator Kerry and President Bush did in 2004 combined,” Cornyn continued.

“What we need is transparency. We need contemporaneous reporting on the Internet. I think that’s the kind of accountability that we need,” concluded Cornyn.

In an interview a few hours after the decision was announced, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) told Raw Story, “If we do nothing then I think you can kiss your country goodbye.”

His attitude reflected the views of Senators McCain and Feingold, President Obama, watchdog groups and 41 industry leaders who called on Congress to halt corporate bribery.

Several non-partisan organizations have begun outreach efforts for fighting the decision through Congress, including the Campaign to Legalize Democracy, Common Cause and Reclaim Democracy.

ADVERTISEMENT

This video is from Fox Fox News Sunday, broadcast Jan. 24, 2010.



Download video via RawReplay.com

ADVERTISEMENT

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

GOP would ‘block the smoking gun’ Trump used to shoot someone on Fifth Ave: law professor

Published

on

As the Senate impeachment trial entered its second day, the Democratic impeachment managers laid out a gigantic trove of damning evidence against President Donald Trump regarding his scheme in Ukraine. But there is no indication that any Republican senator has been swayed to vote to convict, and it remains unclear even whether they will vote to allow additional evidence to be heard.

Law professor Jennifer Taub laid out in colorful imagery how hellbent Republicans are on acquitting the president, in the face of any conceivable evidence:

If Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue (as he once bragged he could without losing voters), Senate Republicans would vote to block the introduction of the smoking gun into evidence.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Conservative senator hints impeachment trial may be moving Republicans: GOP caucus has ‘learned a lot’

Published

on

Senate Republicans are learning a great deal during the impeachment trial, according to one conservative senator.

Nicholas Fandos spoke with Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) during a break in the trial.

Kennedy is one of Trump's biggest defenders, even though he ran for Lousiana attorney general, state Treasurer, and U.S. Senate as a Democrat, before switching parties.

Kennedy acknowledged that Republican senators were not familiar with the case.

"I've learned a lot. Everybody has. Senators didn't know the case," Kennedy admitted. "They really didn't."

The former law school professor claims he has now read through the written briefs twice.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Ethics committee warns sitting federal judges not to affiliate with the Federalist Society

Published

on

On Wednesday, the Judicial Conference's Codes of Conduct Committee, a national panel of high-ranking federal judges responsible for policy-making on U.S. courts, released a draft advisory opinion warning federal judges against affiliating with the Federalist Society, one of the nation's foremost associations of conservative and libertarian lawyers.

The opinion also singled out the American Constitution Society (ACS), the Federalist Society's progressive counterpart.

"The Committee advises that formal affiliation with the ACS or the Federalist Society, whether as a member or in a leadership role, is inconsistent with Canons 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Code," stated the opinion. "Official affiliation with either organization could convey to a reasonable person that the affiliated judge endorses the views and particular ideological perspectives advocated by the organization; call into question the affiliated judge's impartiality on subjects as to which the organization has taken a position; and generally frustrate the public's trust in the integrity and independence of the judiciary."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image