“Should corporations decide our elections?” Great forum in NYC on 10/15!

Friday, October 15, 2010
All Souls Unitarian Church
7:00 pm – 9:00 pm
1157 Lexington Ave. (at 80th St.), NYC

A Provocative Symposium
With panelists: Thom Hartmann, Lawrence Lessig, & Zephyr Teachout
Moderated by: Laura Flanders of GRITtv

A discussion of how the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision affects elections, lobbying, and the mixture of money and politics. Q&A period will follow.

Admission is free.

This Big Apple Coffee Party event is co-sponsored by the Peace and Justice Task Force and Lifelines Center of All Souls Unitarian Church.

For information and to rsvp: 212-252-2619 or bigapplecoffeeparty@gmail.com


One thought on ““Should corporations decide our elections?” Great forum in NYC on 10/15!”

  1. There is a principle that would clean up campaign financing while preserving freedom of speech. It separates the rights accorded to individuals from the power of any group. Here’s what I put together to make it happen. Comments, puh-leeze !


    No candidate for the Presidency or either house of Congress shall accept contributions in cash or in kind from any organization or group of persons for expenses incurred in a campaign for that office. All such contributions shall be made only by individual citizens who shall attest that the funds or other items of value are from their own resources and that they have not received, nor have they been promised, offsetting items of value from any other party in exchange for their contribution. The identity and extent of contributions to such campaigns shall be made public for a period of thirty days from receipt before being employed or used as collateral for a loan by such campaigns. Organizations of any type, i.e. corporations, unions, gun rights advocates, environmental protection groups, even “Susie’s Flower Shop” (a theoretical small business cited in the Citizen’s United Case) may, without restriction, expend money to advocate a position on any issue before or likely to come before the electorate insofar as no candidate’s name or description is included in their expressions of advocacy.

    No person may be elected or appointed to either house of Congress more than two times.


    The intent of the above is to bring “transparency” to campaign financing by removing any group from the process whereby that group may conceal the identity of an individual contributor as well as limiting the influence of such groups or “special interests”. It further prevents an organization from making such contributions when an individual within that organization, such as a union member or corporation stockholder, may oppose the candidate. Considering the large equity position in certain corporations that the federal government has recently taken in response to the economic crises, this is particularly important in excluding such influence. The money from “special interest” groups will then go to promote that for which they exist, their “special interest”. The media will be directed to expositions on the issues facing the electorate, thus enhancing discussion and hopefully understanding of issues, bereft of personalities.

    The term-limits will serve to diminish the motive of any individual or group to who may wish to influence that office-holder by gift or other form of remuneration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *