/PRNewswire-/ -- On the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a new public opinion survey finds that seventy-nine percent of Americans sharply disapprove of the decision and support a constitutional amendment to reverse the Court's ruling. The study, conducted by Hart Research Associates on behalf of Free Speech for People, confirmed previous polls that found wide-ranging and strong disapproval for the decision but is the most comprehensive to date to measure public support for enacting a constitutional amendment. In the 111th Congress, Members, including Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD4) introduced amendment bills seeking to overturn the Citizens United decision.
"This study demonstrates that across a broad political spectrum, the American people oppose the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC," said John Bonifaz, co-founder and director of Free Speech for People. "They are ready for a constitutional amendment campaign that will restore our democracy and return corporations to their place as economic rather than political entities."
The survey also examined public opinion regarding corporations and the current regulatory system and found little confidence in both. Only 5% of voters feel that the current rules and regulations controlling the influence of large corporations on legislation and enforcement are working well. Additionally, only 14% have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in corporations, while 61% worry a great deal or quite a bit that corporations have too much influence and control over government rules and regulations. Underscoring this lack of trust is that better than four in five (82%) Americans feel corporations care mostly about profits, cut corners on services, overcharge on prices, and do not treat their customers well.
According to the survey, the public also has little faith in the current political system. Only 20% of voters claim to be satisfied with the current U.S. political system, while 57% are dissatisfied. What's more, just 14% of voters have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in the political system, while 52% have little confidence.
The survey found support for a constitutional amendment "to make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people" crosses all party lines. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment. "Each of the arguments in favor of passing a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision," Hart Research reports, "is more convincing than any of the arguments against it, and the least effective argument against passage is that it will take too long and is not a good use of Congress's time."
"In many different ways," Hart Research concludes, "the American public makes clear its disapproval of the ruling in the Citizens United case and signals its broad support for a Constitutional amendment to overturn this decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people. There is a clear desire to readjust the level of influence that corporations have in the nation's political, legislative, and regulatory systems."
A full report of the survey findings can be found here.
http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/me10129b_public.pdf
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Judicial Watch Obtains Documents on Obama FCC 'Diversity Czar'
/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding President Obama's "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd's official mission and responsibilities.
According to the documents, provided in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Lloyd's mission is "to open up opportunities for all Americans, in particular women, minorities, small business owners, to participate in and benefit from a robust communications marketplace." Among Lloyd's duties and responsibilities: "To work with the
Consumer Bureau (and other bureaus as appropriate) to collect relevant data and assess the
interaction between communications service providers and consumers in minority communities..." and "to consult with other federal agencies to determine best practices for advancing the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs."
Judicial Watch also requested information pertaining to Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd's office staffing and budget for operation and administration. However, according to FCC Associate General Counsel Joel Kaufman, "We could locate no records responsive to...parts of your request. While Mr. Lloyd shares support staff with others in OGC (Office of General Counsel), no one was hired or assigned specifically to support him in his work. His position is funded out of the agency's fiscal year budget...but he has no separate budget for operation and administration."
In May 2009, Judicial Watch uncovered documents that demonstrate the FCC plans to use the professed goal of "diversity" to regulate free speech in the media. For example, in December 2007, the FCC proposed new "localism" measures to force broadcast stations to offer programming more "responsive to the needs and interests of the communities that they are
licensed to serve." Some legal analysts have said such "localism" policies represent a back-door into the controversial Fairness Doctrine, which the Obama administration claims to oppose.
Lloyd, meanwhile, has been criticized heavily for making a number of controversial statements on race. For example, during a conference in 2005, Lloyd said, "There's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." During a 2008 National Conference for Media Reform, Lloyd also said Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's rise to power was "really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution."
Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Mark Lloyd is part of the organization's comprehensive investigation of all Obama administration czars. Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request with the Office of Management and Budget as well as requests with each separate "czar" office. Article II section 2 of the Constitution, states that, "...[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
Unlike the heads of other executive departments (such as the Secretaries of Energy, Transportation, etc.), most of Obama's "czars" have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate or have had their positions authorized by Congress. Some of these appointees might not have even been subjected to a basic FBI background check. Importantly, some of the "czars" work for the president in the White House -- these individuals could claim "executive privilege" if ever subpoenaed to testify before Congress. And they may not be subject to transparency laws.
"Obama seems to have a 'czar' for everything and too many wield power with zero congressional and public accountability. And considering the radical views of 'czars' like Mark Lloyd, the more information the American people can get on them the better. Do we really want a race-baiting promoter of Hugo Chavez presiding over questionable diversity programs at the FCC?" said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
According to the documents, provided in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Lloyd's mission is "to open up opportunities for all Americans, in particular women, minorities, small business owners, to participate in and benefit from a robust communications marketplace." Among Lloyd's duties and responsibilities: "To work with the
Consumer Bureau (and other bureaus as appropriate) to collect relevant data and assess the
interaction between communications service providers and consumers in minority communities..." and "to consult with other federal agencies to determine best practices for advancing the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs."
Judicial Watch also requested information pertaining to Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd's office staffing and budget for operation and administration. However, according to FCC Associate General Counsel Joel Kaufman, "We could locate no records responsive to...parts of your request. While Mr. Lloyd shares support staff with others in OGC (Office of General Counsel), no one was hired or assigned specifically to support him in his work. His position is funded out of the agency's fiscal year budget...but he has no separate budget for operation and administration."
In May 2009, Judicial Watch uncovered documents that demonstrate the FCC plans to use the professed goal of "diversity" to regulate free speech in the media. For example, in December 2007, the FCC proposed new "localism" measures to force broadcast stations to offer programming more "responsive to the needs and interests of the communities that they are
licensed to serve." Some legal analysts have said such "localism" policies represent a back-door into the controversial Fairness Doctrine, which the Obama administration claims to oppose.
Lloyd, meanwhile, has been criticized heavily for making a number of controversial statements on race. For example, during a conference in 2005, Lloyd said, "There's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." During a 2008 National Conference for Media Reform, Lloyd also said Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's rise to power was "really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution."
Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Mark Lloyd is part of the organization's comprehensive investigation of all Obama administration czars. Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request with the Office of Management and Budget as well as requests with each separate "czar" office. Article II section 2 of the Constitution, states that, "...[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
Unlike the heads of other executive departments (such as the Secretaries of Energy, Transportation, etc.), most of Obama's "czars" have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate or have had their positions authorized by Congress. Some of these appointees might not have even been subjected to a basic FBI background check. Importantly, some of the "czars" work for the president in the White House -- these individuals could claim "executive privilege" if ever subpoenaed to testify before Congress. And they may not be subject to transparency laws.
"Obama seems to have a 'czar' for everything and too many wield power with zero congressional and public accountability. And considering the radical views of 'czars' like Mark Lloyd, the more information the American people can get on them the better. Do we really want a race-baiting promoter of Hugo Chavez presiding over questionable diversity programs at the FCC?" said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, August 31, 2009
Commonwealth Brands, Inc. Issues Legal Challenge to FDA
/PRNewswire/ -- Commonwealth Brands, Inc. has today joined with a number of other companies including the R.J.Reynolds Tobacco Company, Lorillard, Inc. and Conwood Company in filing an action in Federal Court against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding the recently enacted Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This action is designed to protect the plaintiffs' First Amendment right to free speech.
Commonwealth Brands believes that the legislation, as passed on 22 June 2009, imposes unprecedented and impermissible restrictions on its commercial free speech rights as guaranteed by the U S Constitution. If allowed, the Act will virtually eliminate the few remaining avenues that the Company has to communicate with its adult consumers.
Commonwealth Brands also believes that the Act directly violates its Constitutional rights by suppressing its lawful ability to participate in the scientific and political debate surrounding its products and unduly restricts its right to engage in commercial speech.
Jonathan Cox, CEO and President of Commonwealth Brands, Inc. said:
"Commonwealth Brands supports the Act's aim of preventing youth access to tobacco products and actively participates in youth access prevention initiatives.
"However, the Act fails to respect the legitimacy of our commercial freedoms and our right to communicate with our adult smokers. We believe that many of the provisions within the Act violate our constitutional rights and are not reasonably related to the goal of reducing youth access to tobacco products.
"This action seeks to protect our legitimate business interests and ensure that we can continue to participate in dialogue about our products and contribute to the development of reasonable and proportionate regulation."
Beyond these key Constitutional infringements, Commonwealth Brands, Inc. looks forward to partnering with the FDA to develop an effective regulatory framework for tobacco products.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Commonwealth Brands believes that the legislation, as passed on 22 June 2009, imposes unprecedented and impermissible restrictions on its commercial free speech rights as guaranteed by the U S Constitution. If allowed, the Act will virtually eliminate the few remaining avenues that the Company has to communicate with its adult consumers.
Commonwealth Brands also believes that the Act directly violates its Constitutional rights by suppressing its lawful ability to participate in the scientific and political debate surrounding its products and unduly restricts its right to engage in commercial speech.
Jonathan Cox, CEO and President of Commonwealth Brands, Inc. said:
"Commonwealth Brands supports the Act's aim of preventing youth access to tobacco products and actively participates in youth access prevention initiatives.
"However, the Act fails to respect the legitimacy of our commercial freedoms and our right to communicate with our adult smokers. We believe that many of the provisions within the Act violate our constitutional rights and are not reasonably related to the goal of reducing youth access to tobacco products.
"This action seeks to protect our legitimate business interests and ensure that we can continue to participate in dialogue about our products and contribute to the development of reasonable and proportionate regulation."
Beyond these key Constitutional infringements, Commonwealth Brands, Inc. looks forward to partnering with the FDA to develop an effective regulatory framework for tobacco products.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, August 6, 2009
White House Launches 'Fishy' Expedition
/PRNewswire/ -- In a web video released today, Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins denounced the White House's appeal for individuals to send the White House any email or health care messages deemed "fishy."
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had this to say:
"I guess President Obama is unhinged by the prospect of something entrenched in the American political tradition: Dissent," said Perkins. "The right to free speech seems to be, for the President, a rather pesky annoyance that keeps him from having his way on health care. Well, welcome to representative democracy and the reality of opposing viewpoints, Mr. President. And for the next three and one-half years, with all due respect, get used to it."
In the video, Perkins says:
"The White House apparently subscribes to Vince Lombardi's idea that the best defense is a good offense. The wide spread opposition to the President's proposed takeover of health care has apparently blind sided the administration and is causing panic over the prospects the whole plan could be sacked by the American public.
"As a result, the White House is striking back. Macon Phillips on the White House blog wrote, 'Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet' ... he goes on to says that 'since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help.' Phillips goes on to ask individuals to send the White House any email or health care message on the web that seems 'fishy.'
"Fishy? If there is anything fishy it is the White House asking people to help them keep track of those who oppose the government takeover of health care. Is the White House simply wanting to keep a scrapbook of the emails that primarily quote the President and the legislation that he is pushing or is it possible they are simply looking to use this information to intimidate and if possible silence their opponents?"
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had this to say:
"I guess President Obama is unhinged by the prospect of something entrenched in the American political tradition: Dissent," said Perkins. "The right to free speech seems to be, for the President, a rather pesky annoyance that keeps him from having his way on health care. Well, welcome to representative democracy and the reality of opposing viewpoints, Mr. President. And for the next three and one-half years, with all due respect, get used to it."
In the video, Perkins says:
"The White House apparently subscribes to Vince Lombardi's idea that the best defense is a good offense. The wide spread opposition to the President's proposed takeover of health care has apparently blind sided the administration and is causing panic over the prospects the whole plan could be sacked by the American public.
"As a result, the White House is striking back. Macon Phillips on the White House blog wrote, 'Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet' ... he goes on to says that 'since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help.' Phillips goes on to ask individuals to send the White House any email or health care message on the web that seems 'fishy.'
"Fishy? If there is anything fishy it is the White House asking people to help them keep track of those who oppose the government takeover of health care. Is the White House simply wanting to keep a scrapbook of the emails that primarily quote the President and the legislation that he is pushing or is it possible they are simply looking to use this information to intimidate and if possible silence their opponents?"
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Dems Shut Down The House --- Again
PP Note: Just another day in Washington where Nancy Pelosi conveniently forgets the rules put in place by Thomas Jefferson..
Pelosi Censors Republicans
by Rep. John Carter
07/16/2009
Monday night Democrats voted to shut down the U.S. House Representatives rather than allow a handful of Republican Congressmen to speak on the floor. What could have been so offensive or frightening about our discourse that Speaker Pelosi felt she had to protect her party by gagging free speech in the House? .....http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32718
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Pelosi Censors Republicans
by Rep. John Carter
07/16/2009
Monday night Democrats voted to shut down the U.S. House Representatives rather than allow a handful of Republican Congressmen to speak on the floor. What could have been so offensive or frightening about our discourse that Speaker Pelosi felt she had to protect her party by gagging free speech in the House? .....http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32718
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)