Mandle suggests that Obama may become more receptive to the Clean Elections message, and may sign on to FENA, if his reform agenda is sufficiently thwarted by Congress (presumably if he also recognizes that the influence of private money is the main source of his frustration).

Sander M. Levin, MI Chairman

http://www.house.gov/levin/

John S. Tanner, TN

http://www.house.gov/tanner/

Chris Van Hollen, MD
http://vanhollen.house.gov/HoR/MD08/Home

Jim McDermott, WA
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/

Richard E. Neal, MA
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/

Lloyd Doggett, TX
http://www.house.gov/doggett/

Earl Pomeroy, ND
http://www.pomeroy.house.gov/

Bob Etheridge, NC
http://etheridge.house.gov/

Linda T. Sanchez, CA
http://lindasanchez.house.gov/

Kevin Brady, TX
http://www.house.gov/brady/

Geoff Davis, KY
http://geoffdavis.house.gov/

Dave G. Reichert, WA

http://reichert.house.gov/

Wally Herger, CA
http://www.house.gov/herger/

Devin Nunes, CA
http://nunes.house.gov/

Special interests and big money political donors are driving the health care debate away from public options that would ensure all Americans have access to good healthcare at costs they can afford. The NY Times editorial board wrote earlier this month, “Lobbyists and Congressional aides have discussed a possible compromise: Congress would authorize a new government-run insurance program, but it would come into existence only if certain conditions were met - if, for example, private insurers failed to rein in health costs by a certain amount after several years.” In other words, we have finally arrived at the opportunity to devise a desperately needed public health care option,  only to find that our privately financed legislators are bending to the will of their special interest financiers in the insurance and health care industry. This is no compromise at all, but a political diversion that will continue private insurer control of health care for another generation: a system where public health is at direct odds with private profit and insurers hold ultimate power to decide who gets treatment, and where tens of millions go uninsured or underinsured and subject to financial ruin if they lose a job or get ill.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/tradeact/ (a copy of the bill)

Trade Reform
Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment Act of 2008 or the TRADE Act of 2008.

We as citizens of the Space Coast in Brevard Florida are grateful and are experiencing a greater sense of confidence in our nation ‘ s legislative process. This Bill, the TRADE Act of 2008 which strengthens the role of congress concerning trade and treaty agreements is a step in the right direction in congress reclaiming its Constitutional responsibility. For the past thirty years, we the citizens had lost confidence that trade agreements were concerned with ordinary citizens or the nation’s welfare economically and societally. We claim the basic foundation and primary purpose of United States trade and treaty agreements is the welfare of citizens and the nation.

We applaud your direction in Section Two concerning Labor standards and practices, environmental standards and the protection of human health. However we could not find any uniformity of consequences across nation states and corporate entities. What is to prevent a nation from becoming a favorite nation of corporations because of lax enforcement policies. Please let us know how you plan to address this and what language you will use in the legislation.

In Section Three, in examining the economic, labor, social, and environmental impact in countries involved in trade agreements and making that information public we would like to see local government officials (county and city commissioners) involved and public meetings held at the local level to discuss and explore the probable impact as well. If the local community that is to be altered due to the agreement can not support the agreement, then the agreement will need to be altered or abandoned. In this day and age the need for indirect representation concerning governmental involvement that will change the social and economic structure in which people live needs to give way to a more direct involvement of citizen participation.

We understand the stated need for fast track however the last three decades have proved fast track has not been beneficial to the welfare of the ordinary working men and women. Economic democracy is not fast; it is deliberative, thorough, and strengthening of the economic foundation of local communities. We do expect you, our Representatives, to be about strengthening the social, cultural, and economic foundation of the local communities that voted you to office.

With regards to Section Three Number Six, we expect any shifting of public sector services to private corporate ownership to go through the same process of economic, social, and local impact analysis as stated above in this trade agreement. In essence that is also a trade agreement between the citizens of this nation and a corporate entity and we expect the process to be thorough and strengthening of the economic foundation of local communities.

With regards Section Three, 11-C #1, If the trading partner has a democratic form of government, we would expect the United States to push in the directions of fair and clean elections.

Thank you for keeping the processes in Section Three open to the public. And we hope to see these public hearings at the local level with locally elected officials engaging their constituents.

Regarding Section Four as we are grateful for the public involvement in Section Three, we are concerned that we did not find the same language in Section Four. Again we the citizens are ultimately responsible for these agreements working through our representatives. However if we are excluded in any phase, how are we to be responsible. We the citizens will be living in the restructuring of our society as a result of these trade and treaty agreements. As we have witnessed the trade process over the past thirty years we are not confident our best interest is at the heart of our government. Therefore we require transparency to the ultimate degree. We look forward to working with you and your working with us.

Thank you,

Rev. Gregory Wilson

See the full text of the bill below.

S 673 ISCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

111th CONGRESSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1st SessionCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

S. 673CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

To allow certain newspapers to be treated as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

March 24, 2009CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on FinanceCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

A BILLCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

To allow certain newspapers to be treated as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN NEWSPAPERS AS EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER SECTION 501.

(a) In General- Paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘(including a qualified newspaper corporation)’ after ‘educational purposes’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(b) Qualified Newspaper Corporation- Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended–CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) by redesignating subsection (r) as subsection (s), andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink



(2) by inserting after subsection (q) the following new subsection:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(r) Qualified Newspaper Corporation- For purposes of this title, a corporation or organization shall be treated as a qualified newspaper corporation if–CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(1) the trade or business of such corporation or organization consists of publishing on a regular basis a newspaper for general circulation,CommentsClose CommentsPermalink



‘(2) the newspaper published by such corporation or organization contains local, national, and international news stories of interest to the general public and the distribution of such newspaper is necessary or valuable in achieving an educational purpose, andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink



‘(3) the preparation of the material contained in such newspaper follows methods generally accepted as educational in character.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(c) Unrelated Business Income of a Qualified Newspaper Corporation- Section 513 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(k) Advertising Income of Qualified Newspaper Corporations- The term ‘unrelated trade or business’ does not include the sale by a qualified newspaper corporation (as defined in section 501(r)) of any space for commercial advertisement to be published in a newspaper, to the extent that the space allotted to all such advertisements in such newspaper does not exceed the space allotted to fulfilling the educational purpose of such qualified newspaper corporation.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(d) Deduction for Charitable Contributions- Subparagraph (B) of section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘(including a qualified newspaper corporation as defined in section 501(r))’ after ‘educational purposes’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Proponents of the bill say it will protect children and teens while online, where anonymity makes harassment easier.

Opponents contend that the bill would threaten free speech online and that sufficient criminal and civil penalties already exist for such behavior.

Read the full text of the bill behind the cut.

HR 1966 IHCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

111th CONGRESSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1st SessionCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

H. R. 1966CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

April 2, 2009CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

---

A BILLCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

• (1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

  

  (2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

  

  (3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

  

  (4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

  

  (5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

  

  (6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

  

Congress finds the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING.

(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘Sec. 881. Cyberbullying

‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(b) As used in this section–CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink



‘(2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘881. Cyberbullying.’.