Nation Topics - Corporations
Obama could don the mantle of two Roosevelts at once.
3 comments
Even as a BP oil rig spills oil into the Gulf of Mexico, wind farms are opening up possibilities for alternative energy.
Massey Energy hasn't taken a hit after the mine explosion that killed 29 miners--in fact, they're buying more companies.
There is much to criticize about Dodd's bill. But pay-to-play Senator Mitch McConnell is just reading Wall Street talking points.
How much senior executives earn, in cash and stock, is public information. How they make it is public too. Trouble is, the two are barely brought together in reporting.
The talking heads of cable news are leading double lives as paid lobbyists for corporations.
My colleague and friend John Nichols' new post appropriately lauds Rep. Donna Edwards' proposed legislation to redress the damage done by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Citizens United v. FEC to abandon long-standing precedent with the purpose of permitting corporations to dominate the political discourse.
The 2009 stimulus bill that was supposed to spur job creation at a sufficient rate to prevent double-digit unemployment might have done so if it had been approved at the level and with the focus intended by the serious players in the U.S. House who initially crafted a real response to the recession.
Obama could don the mantle of two Roosevelts at once.
Even as a BP oil rig spills oil into the Gulf of Mexico, wind farms are opening up possibilities for alternative energy.
Massey Energy hasn't taken a hit after the mine explosion that killed 29 miners--in fact, they're buying more companies.
There is much to criticize about Dodd's bill. But pay-to-play Senator Mitch McConnell is just reading Wall Street talking points.
How much senior executives earn, in cash and stock, is public information. How they make it is public too. Trouble is, the two are barely brought together in reporting.
My colleague and friend John Nichols' new post appropriately lauds Rep. Donna Edwards' proposed legislation to redress the damage done by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Citizens United v. FEC to abandon long-standing precedent with the purpose of permitting corporations to dominate the political discourse.
The 2009 stimulus bill that was supposed to spur job creation at a sufficient rate to prevent double-digit unemployment might have done so if it had been approved at the level and with the focus intended by the serious players in the U.S. House who initially crafted a real response to the recession.
If the Democratic Party wants to lose – or, to be more precise, wants to lose badly in 2010 and 2012, it need only maintain its current loyalty to the most powerful interests on Wall Street.
Some union leaders think that the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC -- which essentially takes the limits off campaign spending -- will give them the same flexibility and freedom to influence the process as it does corporations. What are the leaders of the labor federation thinking?
What to do about the decision by U.S. Supreme Court to -- in the words of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold -- "(ignore) important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent" in order to make corporations the dominant players in American politics?
