President Obama spoke on this week's address that every ads should
reveal who sponsor them. He referred to the DISCLOSURE Act without
naming it calling it "last month's attempt" to fix the problem, which was blocked by the Republicans for vote. He did not use the word "filibuster".
The DISCLOSURE Act ensures the sponsors of the ads to be named and made it open to public under proper names. President pointed out that an organization such as "Citizens for Better Future" should be put under the public scrutiny if it is more like "Corporation for Weaker Oversight". The Act has some exceptional terms to it and has drawn criticisms for excluding such organizations as NRA from exposing their money being poured into those ads.
President urged the Congress and Senate for bipartisan support for the bill. He did not specifically mentioned McCain-Feingold law, which indeed was named as "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002" that set the limit on corporate spending on ads. Both the Republicans and Democrats at that time insisted to put restrictions on corporate spending.
Some say the investments on corporate sides is beneficial to them, low risk high return investments. What happens, though, if the companies with more money would take over? The rules of jungle never benefit the unprotected. And how much should the corporates pay, if the amounts are unlimited? The regulations are for the protection of all. Most of all, the rules protect the citizens who view the ads.
reveal who sponsor them. He referred to the DISCLOSURE Act without
naming it calling it "last month's attempt" to fix the problem, which was blocked by the Republicans for vote. He did not use the word "filibuster".
The DISCLOSURE Act ensures the sponsors of the ads to be named and made it open to public under proper names. President pointed out that an organization such as "Citizens for Better Future" should be put under the public scrutiny if it is more like "Corporation for Weaker Oversight". The Act has some exceptional terms to it and has drawn criticisms for excluding such organizations as NRA from exposing their money being poured into those ads.
President urged the Congress and Senate for bipartisan support for the bill. He did not specifically mentioned McCain-Feingold law, which indeed was named as "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002" that set the limit on corporate spending on ads. Both the Republicans and Democrats at that time insisted to put restrictions on corporate spending.
Some say the investments on corporate sides is beneficial to them, low risk high return investments. What happens, though, if the companies with more money would take over? The rules of jungle never benefit the unprotected. And how much should the corporates pay, if the amounts are unlimited? The regulations are for the protection of all. Most of all, the rules protect the citizens who view the ads.