Robin Kelly on Corporations

Small businesses are the engines of our recovery

Corporate political spending is not free speech.

Constitutional Amendment

1. Whereas the right to vote in public elections belongs only to natural persons, so shall the ability to make contributions and expenditures to influence the outcome of public elections belong only to natural persons.
2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power of Congress and the States to protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, limit the corrupting influence of private wealth in public elections, and guarantee the dependence of elected officials on the people alone by taking actions which may include the establishment of systems of public financing for elections, or the imposition of requirements to ensure the disclosure of [election] contributions and expenditures.
3. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to alter the freedom of the press.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:[Supreme Court majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, for which the Constitutional Amendment is proposed as a remedy. The FEC had ruled that the movie `Hillary`, released in 2008 to persuade voters against Hillary Clinton, was illegal because it was a disguised campaign contribution made by a corporation. The Supreme Court overruled the FEC]:

Modern day movies might portray public officials in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission [is broadcast] during the blackout period, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, [instead of a candidate or donors, paid] in order to engage in political speech. Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be [unfair]; those assessments, however, are not for the Government to make.

Deregulating banks encourages discriminatory practices.

Congressional Summary:

Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
• TITLE I--IMPROVING CONSUMER ACCESS TO MORTGAGE CREDIT: [for small banks,] requirements are waived if a loan is originated by and retained by the institution
• TITLE II--REGULATORY RELIEF AND PROTECTING CONSUMER ACCESS TO CREDIT: [deregulate] reciprocal deposits [if they] do not exceed 20% of its total liabilities.
• TITLE III--PROTECTIONS FOR VETERANS, CONSUMERS, AND HOMEOWNERS
• TITLE IV--TAILORING REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN BANK HOLDING COMPANIES
• TITLE V--ENCOURAGING CAPITAL FORMATION
• TITLE VI--PROTECTIONS FOR STUDENT BORROWERS

Supporting press release from Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN-6): This legislation will foster economic growth by providing relief to Main Street, tailor regulations for better efficacy, and most importantly it will empower individual Americans and give them more opportunity.

Opposing statement on ProPublica.org from Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY-5): The bill includes many provisions I support: minority-owned banks and credit unions in underserved communities have legitimate regulatory burden concerns. Unfortunately, exempting mortgage disclosures enacted to detect discriminatory practices will only assist the Trump Administration in its overall effort to curtail important civil rights regulations. I simply cannot vote for any proposal that would help this Administration chip away at laws that I and my colleagues worked so hard to enact and preserve.

Legislative outcome: Passed House 258-159-10 on May 22, 2018(Roll call 216); Passed Senate 67-31-2 on March 14, 2018(Roll call 54); Signed by President Trump. May 24, 2018

Reducing tax rates balloons federal deficit & cuts programs.

Summary by GovTrack.US: (Nov 16, 2017)

For Corporations:
• Reduce the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%.
• Overseas earnings would be taxed at 15.5% as opposed to the current 35%. This may seem like an enormous reduction, but current law only taxes overseas earnings if they are returned to the US; the 15.5% rate would apply regardless.

For Individuals:
• Lower the rate for the highest earners from 39.6% to 37%.
• Nearly double the standard deductions for individuals but repeal personal exemptions.
• The Affordable Care Act`s individual mandate would be repealed.

Case for voting NO by Sierra Club (11/16/17): Republicans have passed a deeply regressive tax plan that will result in painful cuts to core domestic programs, to give billionaires and corporate polluters tax cuts while making American families pay the price. Among the worst provisions: