The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Chris on January 25, 2010, 04:33:49 PM
-
Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (Introduced in House)
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4431
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 13, 2010
Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act'.
SEC. 2. EXCISE TAX ON CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND ON CORPORATE EXPENDITURES ON POLITICAL ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS.
(a) In General- Chapter 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain other excise taxes) is amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter:
`Subchapter E--Certain Corporate Political Activities
`Sec. 4491. Corporate contributions to political committees and corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
`SEC. 4491. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND CORPORATE EXPENDITURES ON POLITICAL ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS.
`(a) In General- In the case of a corporation, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 500 percent of the aggregate of the following amounts:
`(1) The amount of contributions (as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) made during the taxable year.
`(2) The amount paid for an electioneering communication described in section 304(f)(3) of such Act.
`(b) Certain Determinations Disregarded- For purposes of this section, any court determination that such Act does not apply to one or more corporations shall be disregarded.'.
(b) Denial of Income Tax Deduction- Subsection (a) of section 275 of such Code is amended by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
`(7) Taxes imposed by section 4491 (relating to corporate contributions to political committees and corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns).'.
(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of subchapters for chapter 36 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`subchapter e. certain corporate political activities.'.
(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to amounts paid after the date of the enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such date.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4431:
****in' moonbats. :whatever:
-
If this idiot isn't thrown out on his fat ass this fall, the people in his district suck. Preferably the tailpipe of a running car.
`(b) Certain Determinations Disregarded- For purposes of this section, any court determination that such Act does not apply to one or more corporations shall be disregarded.'.
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but can the courts be bound by this kind of language?
-
This guy really would need 3 promotions to rise to the level of friggin' idiot. Does he not realize that the first thing we're going to do is refer to it as the 'Free Speech Tax' proposal, and then just sit back and watch as he gets castigated by the mob for even suggesting it.
-
If this idiot isn't thrown out on his fat ass this fall, the people in his district suck. Preferably the tailpipe of a running car.
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but can the courts be bound by this kind of language?
It's laughable. For this to stand, being as how the SCOTUS decision was based on the First Amendment, it would be tantamount to saying "Anytime it feels like it, Congress could do the same thing to private citizens."
He's a total assclown.
-
Would this apply to union contributions??
-
Would this apply to union contributions??
Rhetorical question I'm sure.
Anyway aren't the unions set up as non-profits so they can bypass just laws they don't feel like abiding to?
-
Rhetorical question I'm sure.
Anyway aren't the unions set up as non-profits so they can bypass just laws they don't feel like abiding to?
but are they non-profit corporations?
-
but are they non-profit corporations?
I think the racketeering disqualifies them from the corporation label. Unions are in a class of their own, low class to most people.
-
You know, he did something outrageous once, I don't remember what, and got a lot of attention for it, so now he is just throwing a lifetime of his underwear at the wall to see what might stick next.
-
You know, he did something outrageous once, I don't remember what, and got a lot of attention for it, so now he is just throwing a lifetime of his underwear at the wall to see what might stick next.
He is always doing something stupid. He is the new nutcase for the House.
-
No cosponsors, pretty much assured of dying in committee.
-
You know, he did something outrageous once, I don't remember what, and got a lot of attention for it, so now he is just throwing a lifetime of his underwear at the wall to see what might stick next.
http://www.mycongressmanisnuts.com/
-
Is there a chance this dummy will be defeated in Nov? Even liberals should be embarrassed by this idiot.
-
Is there a chance this dummy will be defeated in Nov? Even liberals should be embarrassed by this idiot.
To the DUmmies on Skin's Island, he is a hero.