http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html

ObservatoireMultinationales @observatoiremultinat CC BY-ND 17/04/2014

3

3

#États-Unis : les obligations de #transparence et d’étiquetage remises en cause au nom de la « liberté d’expression » des entreprises
▻http://multinationales.org/Etats-Unis-les-obligations-de
Un tribunal américain vient d’annuler une partie des nouvelles obligations de transparence récemment introduites aux États-Unis pour entraver le commerce des « minéraux de conflit ». Motif invoqué ? Ces règles porteraient atteinte à la « liberté d’expression » des entreprises concernées. Une décision surprenante qui illustre une tendance inquiétante de la jurisprudence américaine en matière de statut des entreprises. Un tribunal américain vient d’invalider partiellement les règles de transparence sur les « (...)
#Actualités
/ États-Unis, #Industries_extractives, #Agroalimentaire, #Industries_extractives, #Lobbying, transparence, #industries_extractives, #normes_et_régulations, #reporting, #droits_humains, #chaîne_d'approvisionnement, (...)
#Reuters
"▻http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/14/us-court-sec-conflictminerals-idUSBREA3D13U20140414"
"►http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html"
"▻http://www.flickr.com/photos/angeloangelo/9754063341
"
"▻http://www.euractiv.fr/development-policy/le-projet-de-loi-europeen-sur-le-news-533917"
- #États-Unis
ObservatoireMultinationales @observatoiremultinat CC BY-ND
Écrire un commentaire
Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA 2/04/2014

1

1

Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions - NYTimes.com
►http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for four justices in the controlling opinion, said the First Amendment required striking down the limits. “There is no right in our democracy more basic,” he wrote, “than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.”
Dissenting from the bench, Justice Stephen G. Breyer called the decision a blow to the First Amendment and American democracy. “If the court in Citizens United opened a door,” he said, “today’s decision may well open a floodgate.”
#corruption_légale #Etats_unis
Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA
- Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA 2/04/2014
  
  The Supreme Court Just Gutted Another Campaign Finance Law. Here’s What Happened. | Mother Jones
  ▻http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/supreme-court-mccutcheon-citizens-united
  How’d this happen? In the 2012 election cycle, a wealthy Alabama businessman named Shaun McCutcheon tried to make donations in the amount of $1,776 to 27 right-leaning congressional candidates. Not so fast, replied the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the nation’s campaign finance watchdog.
  Not only does the FEC cap the amount of money a donor can give to, say, Joe Schmo for Congress ($2,600 per election in 2013-14) or the Democratic National Committee ($5,000), the FEC also puts a ceiling on the number of within-the-limit donations a donor can make in a single election cycle. In the 2012 cycle, the aggregate limit for a donor like McCutcheon was $117,000 in donations to campaigns, PACs, and party committees. (To be clear, the PACs in this instance are of the traditional variety, the ones that have been around since the 1940s, not the super-PACs ushered in after the 2010 Citizens United decision.)
  McCutcheon didn’t like the FEC telling him he could give $1,776 to 26 congressional candidates but not 27. (That would’ve exceeded the aggregate limit for candidate donations, which at that time was $46,200.) So he sued the FEC, and the Republican National Committee later joined his case as a coplaintiff.
  
  Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA
- Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA 3/04/2014
  
  La Cour suprême ouvre les vannes du financement électoral | Chantal VALERY | États-Unis
  ▻http://www.lapresse.ca/international/etats-unis/201404/02/01-4753777-la-cour-supreme-ouvre-les-vannes-du-financement-electoral.php
  Dans une décision immédiatement saluée par les républicains, mais qui a « déçu » la Maison-Blanche, la plus haute juridiction du pays a jugé « invalides » les limites imposées pour les dons d’un particulier, en vertu du Premier Amendement à la Constitution américaine qui protège, selon elle, la liberté d’un individu « à participer au processus électoral ».
  
  Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA
- Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA 3/04/2014
  
  Supreme Court Further Empowers Wealthy Political Donors - Inter Press Service
  ►http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/04/supreme-court-empowers-wealthy-political-donors
  Stein Ringen, an emeritus professor at Oxford University, compared the current U.S. system to that of ancient Athens where, he noted, “democracy disintegrated when the rich grew super-rich, refused to play by the rules and undermined the established system of government.”
  
  Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA
- Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA 6/04/2014
  
  Democracy Later (WarisaLie) sur Twitter
  ▻https://twitter.com/WarisaLie
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkaYKT6CEAAOHN_.jpg
  
  Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA
- Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA 6/04/2014
  
  L’article (partiel) d’IPS en français ▻http://www.ipsinternational.org/fr/_note.asp?idnews=7920
  
  Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA
- Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA 7/04/2014
  
  We have returned to the gilded age of the late 19th century, when the lackeys of robber barons placed sacks of money on the desks of pliant legislators. If this is not #corruption, what is?
  ▻http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/06/mccutcheon-conservative-supreme-court-next-occupy
  
  Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA
- Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA 12/04/2014
  
  Twitter / causes : Heh. Thx to PriceofOil and ...
  ▻https://twitter.com/causes/status/455030163630469120
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlCXhdbIQAA-gmR.jpg
  
  Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA
Écrire un commentaire