...
首页> 外文期刊>Forbes >Fact and Comment
【24h】

Fact and Comment

机译:事实与评论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

One More Example Of How Congressional Republicans Have lost their political moorings—look at their spending record and their inability, so far, to extend or make permanent the prosperity-producing tax cuts of 2003—was the recent vote by the House of Representatives to severely restrict so-called 527 groups (so named for the section of the tax code under which they are incorporated). These are issue-advocacy groups not covered under the McCain-Feingold bill, which restricted party fundraising for candidates and banned special interests, such as the NRA or NOW, from mentioning candidates' names in advertisements for specific time periods prior to an election. Incredibly, the Supreme Court, in one of its weirder decisions, let this assault on free speech stand. It's no surprise that money flowed to a loophole: 527 groups are not bound by the amount of money they can spend or receive from donors. As long as a 527 doesn't explicitly endorse a particular candidate, it is kosher.
机译:国会共和党人如何失去政治停泊的另一个例子-看看他们的支出记录和到目前为止,他们无力延长或永久保留2003年的富裕生产性减税措施-是众议院最近投票通过了限制所谓的527组(以合并它们的税法中的部分命名)。这些是麦凯恩·费因戈尔法案未涵盖的议题倡导组织,该组织限制了政党为候选人筹集资金,并禁止特殊利益团体(例如NRA或NOW)在选举前特定时间段的广告中提及候选人的名字。令人难以置信的是,最高法院在其一项古怪的裁决中,让这种对言论自由的攻击得以维持。资金流入漏洞不足为奇:527个团体不受他们可以花费或从捐助者那里获得的金钱的束缚。只要527没有明确认可某位候选人,那它就是犹太洁食。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Forbes》 |2006年第10期|p.33-34|共2页
  • 作者

    Steve Forbes;

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 世界经济问题;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号