political spending

Many people in our liberal democracies feel they are being tossed hither and thither by forces beyond their control. Roger
Americans know that secret money is being funneled into our elections every cycle, and they are not happy about it. In fact, almost two thirds of Americans are dissatisfied with the outsized influence of corporations in this country, and 78% want to see the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned.
It's making political spending less and less transparent.
New tax documents released last week confirm what we've known for years: sophisticated political operatives on the right and the left continue to use phony social welfare organizations to pump tens of millions of anonymous dollars into our elections.
America is plunging head-long into what will be the most expensive federal election in history, with essentially no cop on the beat to ensure that the election is administered fairly and transparently. This is going to be one messy election.
On May 6th, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton held her first two fundraising events in San Francisco. I attended an afternoon event, featuring a confident, positive Clinton.
Money isn't speech and corporations aren't people. Most people get that. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, political contributions by corporations and the richest Americans actually are free speech and entitled to special protection. Even when they're made in secret.
IER spokesman Chris Warren dismissed the Republic Report story in a statement to The Huffington Post. "Mr. Fang is grasping
More and more of the nation's leading companies are voluntarily adopting or strengthening their policies to provide for detailed disclosure of their political contributions. Yet they're having to do so against very strong opposition from their own leading trade associations.
The recent brouhaha about the IRS unfairly scrutinizing conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status illustrates just how sticky -- and political -- nonprofit and charitable status has become.
Despite all of the backstabbing, petty, mean-spirited national ads I see, it's a quiet, local ad that annoys and saddens me the most. But as tired as we all are of the negativity, let us not lose sight of the importance of the opportunity that lies ahead.
By Alina Selyukh The study also found little financial benefit in putting former federal or state officials, such as ambassadors
There are moral hazards and agency costs in the allocation of corporate funds. Experience has shown that executives will support policies that diminish shareholder returns. The term "capitalism" refers, after all, to the providers of capital.
Up in Washington, there is also some support in the SEC for companies to disclose their political spending to shareholders
Our republic is being challenged by a powerful array of superhuman forces deeply embedded in the fabric of our culture -- large corporations. But today we got a piece of good news.
Bross, who co-chairs the Conference Board's Committee on Political Spending, explained that this responsibility comes alongside
Another concern was raised last week when the Colorado Daily pointed out that even allowing voters the chance to express
Secret spending in elections is toxic. The Obama administration's draft executive order to increase transparency in political spending is a big step in the right direction. It is time for the president to sign it.