Politics!

[Berliner]

By Mr. MCDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. WELCH, Mr. HONDA, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BECERRA, Ms. LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ of California, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. DELAURO, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. NADLER of New York, Ms. ESHOO, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. TONKO, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. COHEN, Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas, and Mr. FARR):



H. Res. 1018. A resolution requesting the Senate to adjust its rules to reflect the intent of the framers of the Constitution by amending the Senate's filibuster rule, Rule 22, to facilitate the consideration of bills and amendments; to the Committee on Rules.

[Umlaut]

Anybody able to find video of Obama's Q&A session with GOP leaders? According to Berliner's boyfriend Ezra Klein it was, "the most compelling political television I've seen...maybe ever."

Here's a link to the transcript, but I need to see this live.

EDIT: Never mind, found it.

[Berliner]

I think you have Ezra Klein confused with your mom.







Because she's the one who said that.












last night.

[Me!]

Hey, does that one dumb chick that posts insane political blogs without listening to what other users have to say still post here?

[bridgetosolace]

Haven't seen Jenny in a while, no.

[aenemaTron]

She was banned for being a faggot.

[Me!]

Who's butt hole was she sucking on this time?

[pcmess]

Realizing this is less about politics and more tabloid-y, did anyone see 20/20 last night? Apparently there is a sex tape floating around out there featuring John Edwards and a noticeably pregnant Rielle Hunter. The Andrew Young book comes out today.

[smartbunny]

Stop making sex tapes, everyone except porno people!

[Berliner]

What? You want a link about an obscure issue no one really cares about? You got it!

[nathansmart]

So are we for this or against it? I'm for the nutrition of kids of course, but when you have french fries being approved for the "vegetable" part of a meal like you have here in Ohio I don't know if it would matter.

I'm definitely against all the corn subsidies - will this affect that?

[Berliner]

I was mainly referring to farm subsidies, but definitely I would say that improving school nutrition is a good thing, especially if its put into a framework of either feeding children or feeding agribusiness.

There's a huge number of bills being created in response to the supreme court ruling, but they aren't based on limiting corporations or unions from more money. They are based on limiting foreign corporations. They have "interesting" names:

“America is for Americans Act”A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations in which foreign principals have an ownership interest

“Freedom From Foreign-Based Manipulation in American Elections Act of 2010”A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations which are owned or controlled by foreign principals, to increase the civil penalties applicable to foreign nationals who violate the ban

“Prohibiting Foreign Influence in American Elections Act” A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations which are owned or controlled by foreign principals

“Save Our Democracy From Foreign Influence Act of 2010” A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations whose shareholders include any foreign principals

“Prevent Foreign Influence in our Elections Act” A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to extend the ban on election activity by foreign nationals to election activity by domestic corporations which are subsidiaries of foreign principals

A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporation which are owned or controlled by foreign principals

“American Elections Act of 2010” A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to protect Federal, State, and local elections from the influence of foreign nationals

I wonder by the same kind of reasoning that created the Supreme Court ruling, would these bills be considered unconstitutional?

First, these foreign corporations are doing business in the United States, similar to domestic corporations, and they need to protect their interests, similar to domestic corporations. Wouldn't part of that be being allowed to influence elections with money, similar to domestic corporations?

Second, if these laws are ever challenged and went to the Supreme Court, I would assume that they would be found constitutional, based on the idea that foreign corporations would have interests other than the welfare of American people or the security of the Nation. But this also applies to domestic corporations. For example, couldn't Boeing, seeing that it could make a lot of money buy selling its advanced weaponry to a "certain country," campaign to elect representatives that would ensure the lifting of weapons restrictions of this "certain country?" Wouldn't that pose a threat to the American people and the nation?

[Adult Ed]

What is a foreign corporation for the purposes of these statutes? Toyota's US subsidiary is an American corporation. Could the Chinese sovereign investment fund buy Faygo and start donating money?

SCOTUS is going to have a hard time justifying different treatment for US-based but foreign-owned corporations in a later ruling if any of these bills pass.

[nathansmart]

I was mainly referring to farm subsidies, but definitely I would say that improving school nutrition is a good thing, especially if its put into a framework of either feeding children or feeding agribusiness.

How does it help (or hinder) local farms vs. industrial farms?

[Berliner]

One thing that America prides itself on is the fact that it does not discriminate between foreign and domestic corporations. In fact, America kind of loves slamming China on giving preferential treatment to its domestic industries. I don't see why China wouldn't be able to point back at the US (something it loves doing). If the Supreme Court is going to treat domestic companies as people with free speech rights, I can't see how it could block foreign subsidiaries with tax liabilities in the US.

This issue may actually go beyond US law. Other countries could file disputes through the WTO, arguing that the US is acting in a protectionist manner that helps its own domestic corporations in its own market at the expense of foreign ones.

[nathansmart]

are we still talking about farm subsidies?

[scamboogah]

Enough about all this other shit. What's this about the Chinese buying Faygo?

[Berliner]

Direct control of the bottling plants would make it easier to play joke.

[nathansmart]

love it

[Berliner]

How does it help (or hinder) local farms vs. industrial farms?

It would "hurt" both of them, although I would argue it would help them in the long run. But because farm subsidies are actually a form of regressive taxation, meaning that wealthier farmers actually get bigger subsidies than poorer ones, it would proportionally hurt local or small farms less, I suppose.