WG/Strategies/Ideas/Campaign Finance Legislation - Revision history

Pcovery at 22:59, 26 November 2011

2011-11-26T22:59:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:59, 26 November 2011
Line 44:		Line 44:
	Senate Bill 305 would require corporations spending general treasury funds on political advertisements to:		Senate Bill 305 would require corporations spending general treasury funds on political advertisements to:

	*'''notify shareholders '''of those expenditures in quarterly reports (Section 8A);		*'''notify shareholders '''of those expenditures in quarterly reports (Section 8A);
	*get approval from their Board of Directors or Executive Committee (Section 54A.)		*get approval from their Board of Directors or Executive Committee (Section 54A.)

	S305 adds Section 8A to MGL Chapter 156B ~~specifying~~ reporting requirements:		S305 adds Section 8A to MGL Chapter 156B defining reporting requirements:

	*"political activity" includes any contribution, expenditure, independent expenditure or electioneering communication except lobbying or internal communication with stockholders or staff;		*"political activity" includes any contribution, expenditure, independent expenditure or electioneering communication except lobbying or internal communication with stockholders or staff;
	*quarterly reports		*quarterly reports must be signed by the treasurer under penalty for perjury, and must be posted on the organization's website for at least one year;
			*quarterly reports will include the date, amount and purpose of any political activity and the identity of any candidate referred to.

			Section 54A, added by S305, specifies penalties for not obtaining Board approval prior to political advertising:

			*fine against the organization of up to $1,000;
			*fine against an individual (whether an agent of the corporation or not) of up to $1,000 and/or 1 year prison.

	This bill was heard by the [http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J15 Joint Committee on Election Laws] on October 19, after being referred to the committee in January, 2011. The next step for this bill is for the committee chairman [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/MJM1 Michael Moran] (representing Brookline & Brighton) to call a vote to release it to the House floor. The Senate would also have to act in this process.		This bill was heard by the [http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J15 Joint Committee on Election Laws] on October 19, after being referred to the committee in January, 2011. The next step for this bill is for the committee chairman [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/MJM1 Michael Moran] (representing Brookline & Brighton) to call a vote to release it to the House floor. The Senate would also have to act in this process.

Pcovery at 22:53, 26 November 2011

2011-11-26T22:53:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:53, 26 November 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	== Proposed Laws<br/> ==		== Proposed Laws<br/> ==

	Discuss these bills by editing the Discussion tab at the top of the page.  "MGL" below means Massachusetts General Law.  MGL Chapter 55 covers state campaign finance law.~~ ~~		Discuss these bills by editing the Discussion tab at the top of the page.  "MGL" below means Massachusetts General Law.  MGL Chapter 55 covers state campaign finance law; Chapter 156A covers corporations that are subject to Massachusetts law.

	*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H01985 H01985]		*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H01985 H01985]
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Senate Bill 304 will address the problems created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC by requiring new levels of '''disclosure''' and transparency for corporate political spending and prohibiting foreign corporations from influencing elections in Massachusetts.		Senate Bill 304 will address the problems created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC by requiring new levels of '''disclosure''' and transparency for corporate political spending and prohibiting foreign corporations from influencing elections in Massachusetts.

	Last session the Massachusetts Legislature passed a precursor in the budget, subjecting corporate-sponsored political advertising to the same disclosure laws that apply to other political spending. The budget requires corporate CEOs to appear in their companies' ads, saying they approved the message. This was a good first step, but more should be done to ensure continued transparency in political campaign spending.		Last session the Massachusetts Legislature passed a precursor in the budget, subjecting corporate-sponsored political advertising to the same disclosure laws that apply to other political spending. The budget requires corporate CEOs to appear in their companies' ads, saying they approved the message. This was a good first step, but more should be done to ensure continued transparency in political campaign spending.  S304 would significantly broaden the entities required to file and its companion bill, S305 (below,) would expand the information included in campaign finance filing.

	S304 broadens the definitions covered by existing state campaign finance disclosure laws (MGL Chapter 55 Section 1) in three ways:		S304 broadens the definitions covered by existing state campaign finance disclosure laws (MGL Chapter 55 Section 1) in three ways:
Line 42:		Line 42:
	*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00305 S00305]		*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00305 S00305]

	Senate Bill 305 would require corporations spending general treasury funds on political advertisements to '''notify shareholders '''of those expenditures in quarterly reports~~. Additionally, this bill would require corporate managers to~~ get approval from their ~~board~~ of ~~directors prior~~ to ~~spending general treasury funds on~~ political ~~ads.~~ This bill was heard by the [http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J15 Joint Committee on Election Laws] on October 19, after being referred to the committee in January, 2011. The next step for this bill is for the committee chairman [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/MJM1 Michael Moran] (representing Brookline & Brighton) to call a vote to release it to the House floor. The Senate would also have to act in this process.		Senate Bill 305 would require corporations spending general treasury funds on political advertisements to:

			*'''notify shareholders '''of those expenditures in quarterly reports (Section 8A);
			*get approval from their Board of Directors or Executive Committee (Section 54A.)

			S305 adds Section 8A to MGL Chapter 156B specifying reporting requirements:

			*"political activity" includes any contribution, expenditure, independent expenditure or electioneering communication except lobbying or internal communication with stockholders or staff;
			*quarterly reports

			This bill was heard by the [http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J15 Joint Committee on Election Laws] on October 19, after being referred to the committee in January, 2011. The next step for this bill is for the committee chairman [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/MJM1 Michael Moran] (representing Brookline & Brighton) to call a vote to release it to the House floor. The Senate would also have to act in this process.

	*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00308 S00308]		*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00308 S00308]

Pcovery at 21:38, 26 November 2011

2011-11-26T21:38:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 26 November 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	== Proposed Laws<br/> ==		== Proposed Laws<br/> ==

	Discuss these bills by editing the Discussion tab at the top of the page.  "MGL" below means Massachusetts General Law.		Discuss these bills by editing the Discussion tab at the top of the page.  "MGL" below means Massachusetts General Law.  MGL Chapter 55 covers state campaign finance law.

	~~Vermont and Washington have already proposed legislation calling Congress to pass an amendment to counter the Citizens United ruling, a route described below under the heading Federal - Proposed Laws~~.  ~~Vermont's proposed bill states:~~

	*"Resolved...that the General Assembly urges Congress to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution for states' consideration which provides that corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States or any of its jurisdictional subdivisions...."

	Rhode Island proposed a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention "to consider amendments to reverse the Supreme Court's decision" and limited to considering amendments referenced by at least 40% of the states (to avoid a runaway convention.)

	~~None of these bills specify wording for the actual amendment, which is up to Congress or the Convention~~.



	*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H01985 H01985]		*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H01985 H01985]
Line 29:		Line 19:
	Last session the Massachusetts Legislature passed a precursor in the budget, subjecting corporate-sponsored political advertising to the same disclosure laws that apply to other political spending. The budget requires corporate CEOs to appear in their companies' ads, saying they approved the message. This was a good first step, but more should be done to ensure continued transparency in political campaign spending.		Last session the Massachusetts Legislature passed a precursor in the budget, subjecting corporate-sponsored political advertising to the same disclosure laws that apply to other political spending. The budget requires corporate CEOs to appear in their companies' ads, saying they approved the message. This was a good first step, but more should be done to ensure continued transparency in political campaign spending.

	S304 broadens the definitions covered by existing state campaign finance disclosure laws (MGL Chapter 55 Section 1) in three ways:		S304 broadens the definitions covered by existing state campaign finance disclosure laws (MGL Chapter 55 Section 1) in three ways:

	#includes corporations and labor unions;		#includes corporations and labor unions;
	#defines "political committee" as any group handling over $10,000 per year on electioneering communication;		#defines "political committee" as any group handling over $10,000 per year on electioneering communication;
	#defines expenditure to include any value directly or indirectly used to pay for electioneering communication.		#defines expenditure to include any value directly or indirectly used to pay for electioneering communication.

	These changes subject corporations to reporting requirements under MGL Chapter 55 Sections 18A, 18C and 18F.		These changes subject corporations to reporting requirements under MGL Chapter 55 Sections 18A, 18C and 18F.

	S304 changes MGL Chapter 55 by requiring that:		S304 changes MGL Chapter 55 by requiring that:

	*current disclosure and reporting requirements apply to all political communications;
	*corporations and labor unions must disclose their political spending even if resulting advertisements are created by another group;
	*any group paying for political ads must report on funds they receive;
	*large amounts of political advertising require an organization to register as a political committee;
	*political advertisements must identify their top contributors over $1,000 (Section 8G);
	*candidates cannot coordinate with outside political advertisers;
	*
	~~staff who worked for the candidate within the last six months cannot work for independent political advertisers (Section 18G);~~

	*foreign nationals and corporations cannot contribute or advertise about candidates or elections (new Section 18B.)

			*current disclosure and reporting requirements apply to all political communications;
			*corporations and labor unions must disclose their political spending even if resulting advertisements are created by another group;
			*any group paying for political ads must report on funds they receive;
			*large amounts of political advertising require an organization to register as a political committee;
			*political advertisements must identify their top contributors over $1,000 (Section 8G);
			*candidates cannot coordinate with outside political advertisers;
			*staff who worked for the candidate within the last six months cannot work for independent political advertisers (Section 18G);
			*foreign nationals and corporations that are even partially owned by foreign nationals cannot contribute or advertise about candidates, elections or any question to come before the voters (new Section 18B.)





	*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00305 S00305]		*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00305 S00305]
Line 84:		Line 68:
	Senate Bill 772, introduced by [http://www.senatoreldridge.com/the-dridge-report/2430/we-the-people-responding-to-the-citizens-united-decision Sen. Jamie Eldridge ](Shirley, Ayer) would call for the US Congress to initiate a Constitutional Amendment "to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people."  This is intended to counteract the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC that allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns.  Petitioners are:  [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/JBE0 James B. Eldridge], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/SCR0 Stanley C. Rosenberg], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/SKP1 Sarah K. Peake], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/WSP1 William ". Pignatelli], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/CHT1 Cleon H. Turner], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/PWM1 Paul Mark], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/PVK1 Peter V. Kocot], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/JJO1 James J. O'Day], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/DAW0 Daniel A. Wolf], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/TRM1 Timothy R. Madden], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/J_H1 Jonathan Hecht], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/KMC0 Katherine M. Clark], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/K_K1 Kay Khan], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/C_A1 Cory Atkins].  This is with the Judiciary Committee, which would need to vote to approve and release it to the floor for a general vote.		Senate Bill 772, introduced by [http://www.senatoreldridge.com/the-dridge-report/2430/we-the-people-responding-to-the-citizens-united-decision Sen. Jamie Eldridge ](Shirley, Ayer) would call for the US Congress to initiate a Constitutional Amendment "to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people."  This is intended to counteract the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC that allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns.  Petitioners are:  [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/JBE0 James B. Eldridge], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/SCR0 Stanley C. Rosenberg], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/SKP1 Sarah K. Peake], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/WSP1 William ". Pignatelli], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/CHT1 Cleon H. Turner], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/PWM1 Paul Mark], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/PVK1 Peter V. Kocot], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/JJO1 James J. O'Day], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/DAW0 Daniel A. Wolf], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/TRM1 Timothy R. Madden], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/J_H1 Jonathan Hecht], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/KMC0 Katherine M. Clark], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/K_K1 Kay Khan], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/C_A1 Cory Atkins].  This is with the Judiciary Committee, which would need to vote to approve and release it to the floor for a general vote.

	<br/>		Vermont and Washington have already proposed legislation calling Congress to pass an amendment to counter the Citizens United ruling, a route described below under the heading Federal - Proposed Laws.  Vermont's proposed bill states:

			*"Resolved...that the General Assembly urges Congress to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution for states' consideration which provides that corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States or any of its jurisdictional subdivisions...."

			Rhode Island proposed a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention "to consider amendments to reverse the Supreme Court's decision" and limited to considering amendments referenced by at least 40% of the states (to avoid a runaway convention.)

			None of these bills specify wording for the actual amendment, which is up to Congress or the Convention.<br/>

	== Other Reforms to Think About<br/> ==		== Other Reforms to Think About<br/> ==

Pcovery at 21:32, 26 November 2011

2011-11-26T21:32:10Z

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 == Proposed Laws<br/> ==
-Discuss these bills by editing the Discussion tab at the top of the page.
+Discuss these bills by editing the Discussion tab at the top of the page.&nbsp; "MGL" below means Massachusetts General Law.
 Vermont and Washington have already proposed legislation calling Congress to pass an amendment to counter the Citizens United ruling, a route described below under the heading Federal - Proposed Laws.&nbsp; Vermont's proposed bill states:
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 Senate Bill 304 will address the problems created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC by requiring new levels of '''disclosure''' and transparency for corporate political spending and prohibiting foreign corporations from influencing elections in Massachusetts.
-Last session the Massachusetts Legislature passed a precursor in the budget, subjecting corporate-sponsored political advertising to the same disclosure laws that apply to other political spending.  The budget requires corporate CEOs to appear in their companies' ads, saying they approved the message.  This was a good first step, but more should be done to ensure continued transparency in political campaign spending.
+Last session the Massachusetts Legislature passed a precursor in the budget, subjecting corporate-sponsored political advertising to the same disclosure laws that apply to other political spending. The budget requires corporate CEOs to appear in their companies' ads, saying they approved the message. This was a good first step, but more should be done to ensure continued transparency in political campaign spending.

Pcovery: /* Proposed Laws */

2011-11-26T21:08:00Z

Proposed Laws

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:08, 26 November 2011
Line 28:		Line 28:

	Last session the Massachusetts Legislature passed a precursor in the budget, subjecting corporate-sponsored political advertising to the same disclosure laws that apply to other political spending. The budget requires corporate CEOs to appear in their companies' ads, saying they approved the message. This was a good first step, but more should be done to ensure continued transparency in political campaign spending.		Last session the Massachusetts Legislature passed a precursor in the budget, subjecting corporate-sponsored political advertising to the same disclosure laws that apply to other political spending. The budget requires corporate CEOs to appear in their companies' ads, saying they approved the message. This was a good first step, but more should be done to ensure continued transparency in political campaign spending.

			S304 broadens the groups covered by existing state campaign finance disclosure laws in three ways:
			include corporations and labor unions;
			define "political committee" as any group handling over $10,000 per year on electioneering communication;
			define expenditure to include any value directly or indirectly used to pay for electioneering communication.

			requires that:
			current disclosure and reporting requirements apply to all political communications;
			corporations and labor unions must disclose their political spending even if resulting advertisements are created by another group;
			any group paying for political ads must report on funds they receive;
			large amounts of political advertising require an organization to register as a political committee.
			political advertisements must identify their top contributors;
			candidates cannot coordinate with outside political advertisers;
			foreign nationals and corporations cannot contribute or advertise about candidates or elections.


	*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00305 S00305]		*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00305 S00305]

Pcovery: /* Proposed Laws */

2011-11-26T20:40:58Z

Proposed Laws

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 26 November 2011
Line 26:		Line 26:

	Senate Bill 304 will address the problems created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC by requiring new levels of '''disclosure''' and transparency for corporate political spending and prohibiting foreign corporations from influencing elections in Massachusetts.		Senate Bill 304 will address the problems created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC by requiring new levels of '''disclosure''' and transparency for corporate political spending and prohibiting foreign corporations from influencing elections in Massachusetts.

			Last session the Massachusetts Legislature passed a precursor in the budget, subjecting corporate-sponsored political advertising to the same disclosure laws that apply to other political spending. The budget requires corporate CEOs to appear in their companies' ads, saying they approved the message. This was a good first step, but more should be done to ensure continued transparency in political campaign spending.

	*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00305 S00305]		*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00305 S00305]

Pcovery at 12:14, 24 November 2011

2011-11-24T12:14:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:14, 24 November 2011
Line 6:		Line 6:

	== Proposed Laws<br/> ==		== Proposed Laws<br/> ==

			Discuss these bills by editing the Discussion tab at the top of the page.

	Vermont and Washington have already proposed legislation calling Congress to pass an amendment to counter the Citizens United ruling, a route described below under the heading Federal - Proposed Laws.  Vermont's proposed bill states:		Vermont and Washington have already proposed legislation calling Congress to pass an amendment to counter the Citizens United ruling, a route described below under the heading Federal - Proposed Laws.  Vermont's proposed bill states:
Line 51:		Line 53:
	*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00772 S00772]		*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00772 S00772]

	Senate Bill 772, introduced by [http://www.senatoreldridge.com/the-dridge-report/2430/we-the-people-responding-to-the-citizens-united-decision Sen. Jamie Eldridge ](Shirley, Ayer) would call for the US Congress to initiate a Constitutional Amendment "to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people."  This is intended to counteract the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC that allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns.		Senate Bill 772, introduced by [http://www.senatoreldridge.com/the-dridge-report/2430/we-the-people-responding-to-the-citizens-united-decision Sen. Jamie Eldridge ](Shirley, Ayer) would call for the US Congress to initiate a Constitutional Amendment "to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people."  This is intended to counteract the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC that allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns.  Petitioners are:  [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/JBE0 James B. Eldridge], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/SCR0 Stanley C. Rosenberg], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/SKP1 Sarah K. Peake], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/WSP1 William ". Pignatelli], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/CHT1 Cleon H. Turner], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/PWM1 Paul Mark], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/PVK1 Peter V. Kocot], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/JJO1 James J. O'Day], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/DAW0 Daniel A. Wolf], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/TRM1 Timothy R. Madden], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/J_H1 Jonathan Hecht], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/KMC0 Katherine M. Clark], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/K_K1 Kay Khan], [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/C_A1 Cory Atkins].  This is with the Judiciary Committee, which would need to vote to approve and release it to the floor for a general vote.

	<br/>		<br/>

Pcovery at 12:00, 24 November 2011

2011-11-24T12:00:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:00, 24 November 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	== Proposed Laws<br/> ==		== Proposed Laws<br/> ==

	Vermont and Washington have already proposed legislation calling Congress to pass an amendment to counter the Citizens United ruling, a route described below under the heading "Federal."  Vermont's proposed bill states:		Vermont and Washington have already proposed legislation calling Congress to pass an amendment to counter the Citizens United ruling, a route described below under the heading Federal - Proposed Laws.  Vermont's proposed bill states:

	*"Resolved...that the General Assembly urges Congress to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution for states' consideration which provides that corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States or any of its jurisdictional subdivisions...."		*"Resolved...that the General Assembly urges Congress to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution for states' consideration which provides that corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States or any of its jurisdictional subdivisions...."

Pcovery at 11:59, 24 November 2011

2011-11-24T11:59:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:59, 24 November 2011
Line 6:		Line 6:

	== Proposed Laws<br/> ==		== Proposed Laws<br/> ==

			Vermont and Washington have already proposed legislation calling Congress to pass an amendment to counter the Citizens United ruling, a route described below under the heading "Federal."  Vermont's proposed bill states:

			*"Resolved...that the General Assembly urges Congress to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution for states' consideration which provides that corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States or any of its jurisdictional subdivisions...."

			Rhode Island proposed a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention "to consider amendments to reverse the Supreme Court's decision" and limited to considering amendments referenced by at least 40% of the states (to avoid a runaway convention.)

			None of these bills specify wording for the actual amendment, which is up to Congress or the Convention.



	*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H01985 H01985]		*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H01985 H01985]
Line 17:		Line 27:
	*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00305 S00305]		*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00305 S00305]

	Senate Bill 305 would require corporations spending general treasury funds on political advertisements to '''notify shareholders '''of those expenditures in quarterly reports. Additionally, this bill would require corporate managers to get approval from their board of directors prior to spending general treasury funds on political ads. This bill was heard by the [http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J15 Joint Committee on Election Laws] on October 19, after being referred to the committee in January, 2011. The next step for this bill is for the committee chairman [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/MJM1 Michael Moran] (representing Brookline & Brighton) to call a vote to release it to the House floor. The Senate would also have to act in this process.		Senate Bill 305 would require corporations spending general treasury funds on political advertisements to '''notify shareholders '''of those expenditures in quarterly reports. Additionally, this bill would require corporate managers to get approval from their board of directors prior to spending general treasury funds on political ads. This bill was heard by the [http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J15 Joint Committee on Election Laws] on October 19, after being referred to the committee in January, 2011. The next step for this bill is for the committee chairman [http://www.malegislature.gov/People/Profile/MJM1 Michael Moran] (representing Brookline & Brighton) to call a vote to release it to the House floor. The Senate would also have to act in this process.

	*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00308 S00308]		*[http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00308 S00308]
Line 43:		Line 53:
	Senate Bill 772, introduced by [http://www.senatoreldridge.com/the-dridge-report/2430/we-the-people-responding-to-the-citizens-united-decision Sen. Jamie Eldridge ](Shirley, Ayer) would call for the US Congress to initiate a Constitutional Amendment "to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people."  This is intended to counteract the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC that allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns.		Senate Bill 772, introduced by [http://www.senatoreldridge.com/the-dridge-report/2430/we-the-people-responding-to-the-citizens-united-decision Sen. Jamie Eldridge ](Shirley, Ayer) would call for the US Congress to initiate a Constitutional Amendment "to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people."  This is intended to counteract the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC that allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns.

			<br/>


	== Other Reforms to Think About<br/> ==		== Other Reforms to Think About<br/> ==

	<u> Insider Trading</u> Prevent elected officials and public employees from using their position to trade on insider information. "Throw Them All Out" is a new book illustrating this problem. Congress should have to follow the same rules as Martha Stewart and everyone else.		<u>Insider Trading</u> Prevent elected officials and public employees from using their position to trade on insider information. "Throw Them All Out" is a new book illustrating this problem. Congress should have to follow the same rules as Martha Stewart and everyone else.

	<u> Anti Lobbying Laws</u> Occupy LA influencedthe passing of a bill which prohibits lobbyists from doing business on public property.		<u>Anti Lobbying Laws</u> Occupy LA influencedthe passing of a bill which prohibits lobbyists from doing business on public property.

	<u> No Bail Out Money</u> Suggested by Matt Tahibi of Rolling Stone: if your corporation received a bail put or any kind of government assistance you are not allowed to turn around and use that money to lobby Congress.		<u>No Bail Out Money</u> Suggested by Matt Tahibi of Rolling Stone: if your corporation received a bail put or any kind of government assistance you are not allowed to turn around and use that money to lobby Congress.

	<u> No Special Benefits</u> Congress should not receive any benefits that aren't available to the general public. If we don't have a public health care option, neither should they		<u>No Special Benefits</u> Congress should not receive any benefits that aren't available to the general public. If we don't have a public health care option, neither should they

	<u> Post Service Employment</u> Prohibit elected officials and public servants from taking jobs in industries they are supposed to be regulating for four years after their last day in office.		<u>Post Service Employment</u> Prohibit elected officials and public servants from taking jobs in industries they are supposed to be regulating for four years after their last day in office.

	== Existing Laws<br/> ==		== Existing Laws<br/> ==

Pcovery at 11:56, 24 November 2011

2011-11-24T11:56:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:56, 24 November 2011
Line 102:		Line 102:
	A Constitutional Convention might consider any number of changes that are hard to foresee or control.  Some advisors warn about the uncontrollable risk of a runaway convention and therefore recommend pressing Congress to pass a specific amendment.		A Constitutional Convention might consider any number of changes that are hard to foresee or control.  Some advisors warn about the uncontrollable risk of a runaway convention and therefore recommend pressing Congress to pass a specific amendment.

	If enough states pass bills calling for Congress to write an amendment, Congress will feel pressured into action.  ~~Vermont and Washington have already~~ proposed legislation ~~calling Congress to pass an amendment to counter the Citizens United ruling.~~  ~~Vermont's proposed bill states:~~		If enough states pass bills calling for Congress to write an amendment, Congress will feel pressured into action.  See the section above on Massachusetts proposed legislation for discussion of this route.

	"Resolved...that the General Assembly urges Congress to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution for states' consideration which provides that corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States or any of its jurisdictional subdivisions...."

	Rhode Island proposed a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention "to consider amendments to reverse the Supreme Court's decision" and limited to considering amendments referenced by at least 40% of the states (to avoid a runaway convention.)

	~~None~~ of ~~these bills specify wording for the actual amendment, which is up to Congress or the Convention~~.



	[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sjres29is/pdf/BILLS-112sjres29is.pdf Overturn Citizens United Constitutional Amendment]		[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sjres29is/pdf/BILLS-112sjres29is.pdf Overturn Citizens United Constitutional Amendment]