› Dave Funk Responds to SCOTUS Ruling & Boswell Amendment
For Immediate Release:
Dave Funk, Candidate for Congress; Iowa-03 Responds to SCOTUS Ruling & Boswell’s Proposed Amendment
I would like to commend the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on their decision last week to uphold the first amendment rights of millions of Americans nationwide. This is a win for the country and win for Iowa.
Small businesses employ half of this country’s private sector. Until now, small businesses have had no means of participating in elections beyond personal contributions. Now SCOTUS has given them a seat at the table in the political process where they need to participate and be heard. 97.3% of all exporters of goods in the US are small businesses. They are the life-blood of our domestic and global economy. Even more important during this recession, are the opinions and interests of these individuals who we rely on for work and they play a significant role in our international business environment.
Even large corporations need to be able to protect their interests. They also employ millions of Americans. They are relied on for services and products that allow us to function as a society and enjoy our way of life. They too, have needed a seat at the table because a decision that could impact just one large corporation, could also impact the thousands they employ. They are stakeholders in this process and deserve to be involved as well.
Leonard Boswell has proposed a Constitutional Amendment to reverse the SCOTUS ruling today. I oppose this proposal because it will hurt Iowa’s small businesses and thousands employed here by larger corporations. Leonard Boswell has proven yet again that he is more concerned with the opinions of Nancy Pelosi and others in Democrat leadership and not at all concerned about Iowa. He has a history of walking in step with Washington and ignoring Iowans desperate for real representation.
I support this ruling and it will give Iowa’s small businesses the representation they have needed in Washington. Banning businesses from participating in a process where they are major stakeholders does not solve anything. We need all stakeholders involved and this ruling does just that.
I think you are missing the point. Yes, small businesses can now contribute directly into the process. The problem is now large corporations can do the same. Huge companies already have lobbyists doing their bidding. Do we really need them now polluting the airwaves and essentially swaying voters? This is not a win for Americans, but for special interests.
There is something wrong is you think it is now a good thing that a company like Goldman Sachs can launch a media campaign for or against a certain candidate, based strictly on how the said candidate feels about the bank.
Goldman Sachs isn't losing/gaining power one way or another because, like you said, they are already heavily involved in lobbying Washington. So why should we eliminate the only viable route of direct participation for the small business person?
The net effect on large corporations is little if anything. Now it may be more explicit but it won't be any different than it would be otherwise because they could funnel their money into PACs. We'll just be dealing with a few more commercials to join the "most annoying" commericals category.
The net effect on small business is significantly large. They are no longer a stakeholder tied at the hands and feet. And considering they represent half of the America's employed I'd say they certainly deserve this chance. And it's not all biased in one direction like many are claiming. The labor unions have equal access bc the ruling was not about big business, rather, free speech (not that you said it was about big business).
The (big) difference is lobbying affects lawmakers, advertising affects the voters. Lets be honest, corporations have a lot more money than small businesses and labor Unions. If you think small businesses have a shot getting their voice heard over Exxon, Chevron, GE, Ford, ATT, etc you are sadly mistaken. I know it sounds good on paper, mom and pop stores having a voice with the voters and the issues that matter to them, but it just will not work that way.
I would also like to point out this isn't a democrat of republican issue. There are plenty of liberal companies that now can contribute. Google, Apple, Berkshire, and Starbucks are a few that come to mind.
Here is a good analogy for you. You sit down at a poker table with 7 other people. 4 of them have 80% of the chips. Do you think the 3 other guys have as much power and pull as the others? Of course not. This ruling has actually taken power away from individuals and small businesses, and put it in the hands of those with the most money.
Several of my major donors own small businesses, less than 500 employees as defined by the SBA. They would like to contribute more, but federal limits prevent it. Due to excessive cost and regulation, setting up a PAC is out of the question for these businesses. The ruling last week allows these very businesses to opportunity to speak directly to other voters, without the FEC interfering with a corporate citizens right to free speech.
I see this ruling as a step for freedom, and the left is going nut's over it, McCain-Finegold should have been named "The Incumbent Employment Protection Act", thank God that SCOTUS struck most of it down last week.