Friday, March 5 – Nothing is guaranteed
No votes were taken today, but progress to report on several bills.
Two of my bills have been assigned to subcommittees.
That’s no guarantee of favorable action. Nothing is guaranteed in the legislative process.
But a committee chair doesn’t ask members to work on a bill that the chair wants to kill.
On the Cigarette Restitution Fund, the interested parties had positive discussions about how to streamline the distribution of funds to reduce smoking among teens and treat those with tobacco-related illnesses.
Amendments have been drafted on my bill to require stockholder approval before a Maryland corporation can make an independent political expenditure. I’ve shared these changes with the people who expressed concerns at the hearing on the Senate version of this legislation.
My objective for one of my bills is a legitimate summer study. The chair of the committee that would conduct that review is interested in doing so.
Showing posts with label corporate campaign contributions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate campaign contributions. Show all posts
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Thursday, February 25 – Not yet fit to print
Publicity is nice, but it doesn’t get your bill passed.
USA Today had a story about legislation regulating corporate contributions to political campaigns in response to the controversial Supreme Court decision on this issue.
I was quoted, discussing my bill to require shareholder approval before a corporation can make an independent political expenditure. (“Delegate Rosenberg said he hopes it has a ‘tempering effect’ on outside spending in state races.”)
There was also a photo. (I’m wearing my Marx Brothers tie.)
Earlier in the week, I received a letter from the Maryland Bar Association, raising concerns about my bill.
That prompted me to ask an election law attorney for his thoughts. He sent me his suggested revisions yesterday afternoon.
At dinner last night, I learned that Professor Larry Gibson, who teaches election law, had testified against the Senate version of my legislation.
So this morning, I began drafting amendments to my bill.
As soon as they are available, I’ll seek comments from the election law attorney, the Bar Association, and Professor Gibson. But not the USA Today reporter.
That can wait - until the bill passes.
USA Today had a story about legislation regulating corporate contributions to political campaigns in response to the controversial Supreme Court decision on this issue.
I was quoted, discussing my bill to require shareholder approval before a corporation can make an independent political expenditure. (“Delegate Rosenberg said he hopes it has a ‘tempering effect’ on outside spending in state races.”)
There was also a photo. (I’m wearing my Marx Brothers tie.)
Earlier in the week, I received a letter from the Maryland Bar Association, raising concerns about my bill.
That prompted me to ask an election law attorney for his thoughts. He sent me his suggested revisions yesterday afternoon.
At dinner last night, I learned that Professor Larry Gibson, who teaches election law, had testified against the Senate version of my legislation.
So this morning, I began drafting amendments to my bill.
As soon as they are available, I’ll seek comments from the election law attorney, the Bar Association, and Professor Gibson. But not the USA Today reporter.
That can wait - until the bill passes.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, February 12 - Quoting Higher Authorities
In addition to quoting Supreme Court Justice Stevens on the harmful effect of unlimited corporate money in political campaigns, I can now cite Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Chris Van Hollen.
They introduced legislation yesterday to restrict such spending at the federal level. So I asked our bill drafter if their proposals had any provisions that we could add to ours.
Another Supreme Court decision has made it far more difficult for the victims of an unlawful employment practice to be compensated. It interpreted the civil rights laws to require that discrimination be the only motivating factor.
I’ve introduced House Bill 504, which would allow recovery if discrimination was one of several factors that prompted the employer’s illegal act.
I met with the chairman of the subcommittee that will consider my legislation. When he asked me the facts of the Supreme Court case, I did not quote Justice Stevens’ dissent.
I hadn’t read it. But by the time of the public hearing, I’ll know it very well.
They introduced legislation yesterday to restrict such spending at the federal level. So I asked our bill drafter if their proposals had any provisions that we could add to ours.
Another Supreme Court decision has made it far more difficult for the victims of an unlawful employment practice to be compensated. It interpreted the civil rights laws to require that discrimination be the only motivating factor.
I’ve introduced House Bill 504, which would allow recovery if discrimination was one of several factors that prompted the employer’s illegal act.
I met with the chairman of the subcommittee that will consider my legislation. When he asked me the facts of the Supreme Court case, I did not quote Justice Stevens’ dissent.
I hadn’t read it. But by the time of the public hearing, I’ll know it very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)