Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell bluntly warned Republican senators in a private meeting not to sign on to a bill from Sen. Josh Hawley aimed at limiting corporate money bankrolling high-powered outside groups, telling them that many of them won their seats thanks to the powerful super PAC the Kentucky Republican has long controlled.

6 points

This is the best summary I could come up with:


(CNN) - Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell bluntly warned Republican senators in a private meeting not to sign on to a bill from Sen. Josh Hawley aimed at limiting corporate money bankrolling high-powered outside groups, telling them that many of them won their seats thanks to the powerful super PAC the Kentucky Republican has long controlled.

According to multiple sources familiar with the Tuesday lunch meeting, McConnell warned GOP senators that they could face “incoming” from the “center-right” if they signed onto Hawley’s bill.

But there’s also no love lost between McConnell and Hawley, who has long criticized the GOP leader and has repeatedly called for new leadership atop their conference.

Just on Tuesday, Hawley told CNN that it was “mistake” for McConnell to be “standing with” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, in their push to tie Ukraine aid to an Israel funding package.

Hawley’s new bill, called the Ending Corporate Influence on Elections Act, is aimed at reversing the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that loosened campaign finance laws – an effort that aligns the conservative Missouri Republican with many Democrats.

According to a list of senators obtained by CNN, McConnell singled out a number of lawmakers who benefited from his outside group over the last three cycles: Mike Braun of Indiana, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Susan Collins of Maine, Steve Daines of Montana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Katie Britt of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Ted Budd of North Carolina, JD Vance of Ohio and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.


The original article contains 474 words, the summary contains 283 words. Saved 40%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

permalink
report
reply
61 points

Let them eat their own faces. Corruption of these folks Tammany Hall level is where we are again.

permalink
report
reply
30 points

Did you see that hawley basically wants to over turn Citizens United? That could be major!

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

He doesn’t though. It is all culture war posturing:

“Let’s get one thing straight,” Hawley bellowed this summer, “Corporations are not people.” The crowd, this one gathered in Washington for the social conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition summit, barely stirred. But then they erupted when the populist senator continued, “I’ve got news for these woke corporations: We are not going to surrender this nation to the cultural Marxists in the C-suite.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Knew it. He’s cutting off his nose to spite his face.

Edit: However, in this case, the nose has cancer, so maybe it could accidentally wind up being a good thing. Is he doing something he thinks is so evil, he’s flipped back to good, like an old videogame score…?

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

This is typical conservative behavior. The moment the status quo does not benefit themselves, they become stridently progressive on that one issue.

Notice the subtext. Woke corporations and C-suite Marxists. He’s opposed to corporations funding his opponents, and he finally got around to doing the math on Citizens United and realized that most corporations aren’t run by fundamentalists and bigots.

Money isn’t speech, and corporations aren’t people. I’ve always said that. But the only reason Hawley agrees with me now is that the “people” are “saying” they don’t want to be associated with fascists and terrorists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Must be an ulterior motive, like corporations being people makes anti abortion legislation impossible to write in legaleaze or similar.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The cultural Marxists in the C-suite

Wtf does that even mean? It’s just a nonsensical jumble of buzzwords thrown together. The crowd cheered for that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It pisses me off that I agree with Hawley about anything, but here we are.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I think it’s always important to remember that people like him aren’t evil incarnate they just have radically different worldviews, the majority of which I vehemently disagree with, but there’s always some commonality out there somewhere. Cory Booker is working with Hawley on child labor prevention.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Tammany Hall got some things done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
129 points

It’s hard to believe a Republican is pushing a piece of non-terrible legislation for a change.

permalink
report
reply
66 points

Yes! I’m confused! Hawley has always been a shithead. What’s changed!!?! I’m not complaining, just curious… and a little suspicious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
84 points

He’s still a shit head, he just probably thinks this will limit corporate money to Dems, plus most of the Republican party takes donations from shady or compromised sources like the NRA, so it doesn’t hurt them as much to limit corporate contributions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Shhhh… Let them think they’ll own the libs on this “terrible bill for democrats” wink wink

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

He may actually be dumb enough to believe that such legislation would hurt Democrats more than Republicans.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

True believers are always a detriment to a false movement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

He doesn’t, and he won’t. It is part of their culture war against woke. It will not end in any legislation, but it will be repeated ad nauseum in the press as if it was actually serious, and his voters will lap it up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Yes; either redemption is possible and a choice or there’s an angle. And this is not a partisan issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The more extreme the Republican party becomes the more likely it is that big corporations will fund Democrat opponents.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Yes just keep handing our democracy over to the highest bidders and see how this all ends

permalink
report
reply
10 points

You make it sound like that’s not the express aim of the mainstream republican politicians. This isn’t a bug to them, it’s a feature.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Seems optimistic to assume most Dems are much better

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

One of the most successful con-jobs ever was convince people that all Democrats and all Republicans are the same because all it does it create apathy among democratic voters and help Republicans get elected.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The Leadership PAC has unlimited contributions.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 14K

    Posts

  • 414K

    Comments