Quote
February 24, 2012
46 notes
"The influx of money in this election cycle makes disclosure and disclaimer regulations absolutely essential to preserving free and fair elections,” the senators wrote in the letter. “There is no decision more fundamental to our democracy than voters choosing which candidate will best represent their interests in government. We believe that the American people should have timely access to relevant information as they evaluate candidates in local and federal elections, including who is paying for political advertisements."

—

Senator Michael Bennet(D-CO), in an open letter to the FEC, asking them to consider broad disclosure and disclaimer requirements as the agency prepares to change several rules in the wake of the Citizens United decision.

Sen. Bennet pointed to the tens of millions of dollars already being donated and spent, by Super PACs, in the 2012 election as evidence of the need for new disclosure rules. Additionally, he requested that the agency consider requiring disclosure of donors, attempting to remain anonymous, who send money to non-profits that then give the money to Super PACs.

Sen. Bennet’s letter was co-signed by ten of his fellow lawmakers, including:

  • Sen. Al Franken(D-MN)
  • Sen. Jeff Merkley(D-OR)
  • Sen. Tom Udall(D-NM) 
  • Sen. Sherrod Brown(D-OH) 
  • Sen. Chuck Schumer(D-NY) 
  • Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse(D-RI) 
  • Sen. Barbara Boxer(D-CA) 
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders(I-VT)
  • Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand(D-NY)

(Source: coloradoindependent.com)

Tags: Politics FEC Campaign Contributions Campaign Finance Campaign Finance Laws FEC Citizens United Citizens United Ruling FEC vs Citizens United Michael Bennet Al Franken Jeff Merkley Tom Udall Sherrod Brown Chuck Schumer Sheldon Whitehouse Barbara Boxer Bernie Sanders Kirsten Gillibrand

Photo
January 26, 2012
17 notes
Sen. Al Franken, Rep. Jeff Landry Bridge Political Divide in an Attempt to Overturn Detainee Language in National Defense Authorization Act Unlikely allies, Sen. Al Franken(D-Minn.) and Rep. Jeff Landry(R-LA), have joined forces in an attempt to overhaul the detainee language from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. The language in question, affirmation of the president’s right to indefinitely detain anyone suspected of joining or “substantially [supporting] al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces”, has come under fire from Representatives and Senators on both sides of the political aisle. While introducing his new bill, Landry noted that “any statute that could possibly be interpreted to allow a president to detain American citizens without charge or trial is incredibly alarming.” from The Hill: President George W. Bush originally claimed a similar right under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a law passed in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To the dismay of some on the left, Obama has asserted the same claim, and Congress has now codified it. The provision, however, does not specifically exempt U.S. citizens, and that’s the rub. “You go down a slippery slope,” Franken told The Hill. “To not give people a hearing, to not give an American citizen the right to have his case heard in a court — I think that’s one of our basic rights. Once we’re starting to get rid of our basic rights, we’re in real trouble.” Franken and Landry are not alone in their efforts to fight what many are interpreting as a gross expansion of executive branch power. Sen. Dianne Feinstein(D-CA) introduced a similar bill already, exempting U.S. citizens from the detention provisions, but that bill was defeated 45-55 in the Senate. However, Sen. Feinstein did manage to garner the support of several prominent conservatives, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. While there’s not been a bill that’s come close to altering the language of the NDAA, yet, many view the multiple bipartisan efforts at doing-so as a clear indication that this debate will not be going anywhere. But will the debate prove problematic for President Obama on the campaign trail? Or will the arguments stay in Washington, largely ignored by non-political junkies and those outside the Beltway? (images courtesy of the House of Representatives) | Follow Manic, Chill |     | Subscribe to Manic, Chill(RSS) |     | Subscribe via Email |

Sen. Al Franken, Rep. Jeff Landry Bridge Political Divide in an Attempt to Overturn Detainee Language in National Defense Authorization Act

Unlikely allies, Sen. Al Franken(D-Minn.) and Rep. Jeff Landry(R-LA), have joined forces in an attempt to overhaul the detainee language from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

The language in question, affirmation of the president’s right to indefinitely detain anyone suspected of joining or “substantially [supporting] al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces”, has come under fire from Representatives and Senators on both sides of the political aisle. While introducing his new bill, Landry noted that “any statute that could possibly be interpreted to allow a president to detain American citizens without charge or trial is incredibly alarming.”

from The Hill:

President George W. Bush originally claimed a similar right under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a law passed in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To the dismay of some on the left, Obama has asserted the same claim, and Congress has now codified it.

The provision, however, does not specifically exempt U.S. citizens, and that’s the rub.

“You go down a slippery slope,” Franken told The Hill. “To not give people a hearing, to not give an American citizen the right to have his case heard in a court — I think that’s one of our basic rights. Once we’re starting to get rid of our basic rights, we’re in real trouble.”

Franken and Landry are not alone in their efforts to fight what many are interpreting as a gross expansion of executive branch power. Sen. Dianne Feinstein(D-CA) introduced a similar bill already, exempting U.S. citizens from the detention provisions, but that bill was defeated 45-55 in the Senate. However, Sen. Feinstein did manage to garner the support of several prominent conservatives, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

While there’s not been a bill that’s come close to altering the language of the NDAA, yet, many view the multiple bipartisan efforts at doing-so as a clear indication that this debate will not be going anywhere.

But will the debate prove problematic for President Obama on the campaign trail? Or will the arguments stay in Washington, largely ignored by non-political junkies and those outside the Beltway?

(images courtesy of the House of Representatives)

| Follow Manic, Chill |     | Subscribe to Manic, Chill(RSS) |     | Subscribe via Email |

Tags: Politics News Civil Liberties NDAA Indefinite Detention National Defense Authorization Act Al Franken Jeff Landry

Quote
November 18, 2011
52 notes
"Minnesotans’ right to fair and transparent elections have been severely compromised since the Supreme Court held that American corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. This constitutional amendment would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money in federal and state campaigns, which is why I strongly support it."

— Sen. Al Franken(D-MN), explaining his decision to co-sponsor a soon-to-be proposed Constitutional amendment in the U.S. Senate. The amendment aims to give Congress the ability to regulate the amount of money spent on federal and state political campaigns.

(Source: washingtonindependent.com)

Tags: Politics News Congress US Constitution Constitutional Amendment Al Franken Campaign Contributions Campaign Finance Laws

Link
October 21, 2011
8 notes
Franken Leads Charge to Reform 'No Child Left Behind' | The Colorado Independent

Arguing the current standard for student assessment is a “perversity” that leads to a “race to the middle,” Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) successfully introduced an amendment that would better gauge student learning and knowledge. The proposal is part of the ongoing Senate debate over how to move the nation’s major education law of the land beyond No Child Left Behind.

His amendment, one of a handful passed so far by the HELP committee as it undergoes a markup of the sweeping K-12 education bill authored by leading sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), would lift the restrictions currently in place that bar states from testing students based on their current skill level.

Just like the higher education entrance assessment the GRE, Sen. Franken’s amendment opens the door for states to use Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT), software that increases or decreases the difficulty of questions based on the test taker’s response. Present state efforts, like Oregon’s, to incorporate CAT have been stymied since current law views such methods as introducing questions not on level with the skill level of middle of the road students.

“I’ve traveled all over Minnesota and heard from principals, teachers, and administrators who say they need a better way to measure the growth of their students, because the current testing system just isn’t working,” Sen. Franken told TAI in an e-mail.

Read More

Tags: Politics News Education Education Reform No Child Left Behind Al Franken Tom

Photo
August 25, 2011
64 notes
timetruthhumor: Democratic Senator Al Franken says: ” the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is a really, really bad idea.” If you’ve been keeping up with the fight to stop media consolidation, you know what we’re worried about: the prospect of just a few enormous corporations controlling the flow of information in America. That’s why the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is a really, really bad idea. It would create a wireless juggernaut so powerful that only Verizon could hope to compete (Sprint would likely wither away or get eaten up by one of the new Big Two). These two monoliths could raise prices or reduce the quality of service with no concern that their customers will go somewhere else — because there won’t be anywhere else for them to go. This is bad for consumers, obviously — but it’s also bad for an industry so critical to our economy. Meanwhile, the merger would be a bad blow for net neutrality, allowing the Big Two unprecedented control over what content we can access on wireless networks — and at what speed. And if that weren’t enough, AT&T estimates that it will save $3 billion a year in “operational savings” and “cost synergies,” which sounds to me like layoffs, and lots of them — maybe thousands or even tens of thousands of lost jobs. Let’s see — higher prices, worse service, less innovation, reduced competition, AND lost jobs? Sounds like a really, really bad idea to me. I’m going to fight this merger, and I hope you’re ready to help. Stay tuned. Thanks, Al Maybe Sen. Franken should call and explain all of this information to Rick Perry, because he either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care about, how negatively this could impact his own state.

timetruthhumor:

Democratic Senator Al Franken says: ” the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is a really, really bad idea.”

If you’ve been keeping up with the fight to stop media consolidation, you know what we’re worried about: the prospect of just a few enormous corporations controlling the flow of information in America.

That’s why the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is a really, really bad idea.

It would create a wireless juggernaut so powerful that only Verizon could hope to compete (Sprint would likely wither away or get eaten up by one of the new Big Two). These two monoliths could raise prices or reduce the quality of service with no concern that their customers will go somewhere else — because there won’t be anywhere else for them to go. This is bad for consumers, obviously — but it’s also bad for an industry so critical to our economy.

Meanwhile, the merger would be a bad blow for net neutrality, allowing the Big Two unprecedented control over what content we can access on wireless networks — and at what speed.

And if that weren’t enough, AT&T estimates that it will save $3 billion a year in “operational savings” and “cost synergies,” which sounds to me like layoffs, and lots of them — maybe thousands or even tens of thousands of lost jobs.

Let’s see — higher prices, worse service, less innovation, reduced competition, AND lost jobs? Sounds like a really, really bad idea to me.

I’m going to fight this merger, and I hope you’re ready to help. Stay tuned.

Thanks,

Al

Maybe Sen. Franken should call and explain all of this information to Rick Perry, because he either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care about, how negatively this could impact his own state.

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

Tags: Politics News Tech Al Franken AT&T T-Mobile

Quote
May 12, 2011
494 notes
"We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America like a 4-year-old loves his mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a 4-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. That’s why we liberals want America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world, and we love it and want it to do well."

— Al Franken (via greaterthanlapsed)

(Source: quoty.org, via jonathan-cunningham)

Tags: Politics Al Franken Liberals