<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Court has recognized that First Amen&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420</link>
	<description>helping you to save the world... &#38; some of your tax money;)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:57:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Critique of The Story of Citizens United&#8230; &#171; The United Persons</title>
		<link>http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420/comment-page-1#comment-9330</link>
		<dc:creator>Critique of The Story of Citizens United&#8230; &#171; The United Persons</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 06:44:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theunitedpersons.org/?p=420#comment-9330</guid>
		<description>[...] Critique of The Story of Citizens United v. FEC: Annie Leonard released a video titled “The Story of Citizens United v. FEC,” an eight-and-a-half-minute criticism of http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Critique of The Story of Citizens United v. FEC: Annie Leonard released a video titled “The Story of Citizens United v. FEC,” an eight-and-a-half-minute criticism of <a href="http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420" rel="nofollow">http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Speechnow.org v. FEC: &#8220;In Citizens Unite&#8230; &#171; The United Persons</title>
		<link>http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420/comment-page-1#comment-1961</link>
		<dc:creator>Speechnow.org v. FEC: &#8220;In Citizens Unite&#8230; &#171; The United Persons</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 21:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theunitedpersons.org/?p=420#comment-1961</guid>
		<description>[...] comments  mazsa on The Court has recognized that …… on The Icelandic Modern Media Ini…mazsa on The Icelandic Modern Media [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] comments  mazsa on The Court has recognized that …… on The Icelandic Modern Media Ini…mazsa on The Icelandic Modern Media [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mazsa</title>
		<link>http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420/comment-page-1#comment-1303</link>
		<dc:creator>mazsa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:35:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theunitedpersons.org/?p=420#comment-1303</guid>
		<description>http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/obama-on-citizens-united</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/obama-on-citizens-united" rel="nofollow">http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/obama-on-citizens-united</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mazsa</title>
		<link>http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420/comment-page-1#comment-460</link>
		<dc:creator>mazsa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Apr 2010 15:13:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theunitedpersons.org/?p=420#comment-460</guid>
		<description>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/opinion/24sat1.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/opinion/24sat1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/opinion/24sat1.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mazsa</title>
		<link>http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420/comment-page-1#comment-81</link>
		<dc:creator>mazsa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:39:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theunitedpersons.org/?p=420#comment-81</guid>
		<description>&quot;The recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, allowing corporations and unions to spend freely on ads explicitly supporting or opposing political candidates, will worsen matters. The threat of unlimited amounts of negative advertising from special interest groups will only make members more beholden to their natural constituencies and more afraid of violating party orthodoxies.

I can easily imagine vulnerable members approaching a corporation or union for support and being told: “We’d love to support you, but we have a rule. We only support candidates who are with us at least 90 percent of the time. Here is our questionnaire with our top 10 concerns. Fill it out.” Millions of campaign dollars now ride on the member’s response. The cause of good government is not served.

What to do? While fundamental campaign finance reform may ultimately require a constitutional amendment, there are less drastic steps we can take to curb the distorting influence of money in politics. Congress should consider ways to lessen the impact of the Citizens United decision through legislation to enhance disclosure requirements, require corporate donors to appear in the political ads they finance and prohibit government contractors or bailout beneficiaries from spending money on political campaigns.

Congress and state legislators should also consider incentives, including public matching funds for smaller contributions, to expand democratic participation and increase the influence of small donors relative to corporations and other special interests.&quot; 

Evan Bayh: Why I’m Leaving the Senate
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/opinion/21bayh.html?hp=&amp;pagewanted=all</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, allowing corporations and unions to spend freely on ads explicitly supporting or opposing political candidates, will worsen matters. The threat of unlimited amounts of negative advertising from special interest groups will only make members more beholden to their natural constituencies and more afraid of violating party orthodoxies.</p>
<p>I can easily imagine vulnerable members approaching a corporation or union for support and being told: “We’d love to support you, but we have a rule. We only support candidates who are with us at least 90 percent of the time. Here is our questionnaire with our top 10 concerns. Fill it out.” Millions of campaign dollars now ride on the member’s response. The cause of good government is not served.</p>
<p>What to do? While fundamental campaign finance reform may ultimately require a constitutional amendment, there are less drastic steps we can take to curb the distorting influence of money in politics. Congress should consider ways to lessen the impact of the Citizens United decision through legislation to enhance disclosure requirements, require corporate donors to appear in the political ads they finance and prohibit government contractors or bailout beneficiaries from spending money on political campaigns.</p>
<p>Congress and state legislators should also consider incentives, including public matching funds for smaller contributions, to expand democratic participation and increase the influence of small donors relative to corporations and other special interests.&#8221; </p>
<p>Evan Bayh: Why I’m Leaving the Senate<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/opinion/21bayh.html?hp=&#038;pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/opinion/21bayh.html?hp=&#038;pagewanted=all</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mazsa</title>
		<link>http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420/comment-page-1#comment-75</link>
		<dc:creator>mazsa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theunitedpersons.org/?p=420#comment-75</guid>
		<description>Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) will introduce their legislative counterpunch to the Supreme Court&#039;s recent decision on corporate campaign spending the week after the Presidents Day recess, the Democratic lawmakers confirmed on Thursday. 

SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED LEGISLATION: http://electionlawblog.org/archives/schumer-vanhollen.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) will introduce their legislative counterpunch to the Supreme Court&#8217;s recent decision on corporate campaign spending the week after the Presidents Day recess, the Democratic lawmakers confirmed on Thursday. </p>
<p>SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED LEGISLATION: <a href="http://electionlawblog.org/archives/schumer-vanhollen.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://electionlawblog.org/archives/schumer-vanhollen.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mazsa</title>
		<link>http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420/comment-page-1#comment-63</link>
		<dc:creator>mazsa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theunitedpersons.org/?p=420#comment-63</guid>
		<description>&quot;With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don&#039;t think American elections should be bankrolled by America&#039;s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I&#039;d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.&quot; http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don&#8217;t think American elections should be bankrolled by America&#8217;s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I&#8217;d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.&#8221; <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mazsa</title>
		<link>http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420/comment-page-1#comment-62</link>
		<dc:creator>mazsa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:17:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theunitedpersons.org/?p=420#comment-62</guid>
		<description>http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission" rel="nofollow">http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mazsa</title>
		<link>http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420/comment-page-1#comment-61</link>
		<dc:creator>mazsa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:22:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theunitedpersons.org/?p=420#comment-61</guid>
		<description>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/25/citizen-uniteds-concept-of-the-u-s-constitution/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/25/citizen-uniteds-concept-of-the-u-s-constitution/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/25/citizen-uniteds-concept-of-the-u-s-constitution/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

