I've been puzzling over why my opponent thinks this is a good argument (disparaging my refusal to accept corporate contributions to my campaign). All I can come up with is that he doesn't understand how political corruption in America works.
Let me explain.
First, it's true that both Senator Kean and I have received campaign contributions from sitting members of Congress who support us. And some of those members (including all backing him) accept corporate PAC checks.
But in those cases, neither Senator Kean nor I have any reason to feel indebted to a corporation that at some point made a campaign contribution to someone else, who then in turn chose to back us. We never solicited it from a corporation, and they never directed it to us.
The difference here is that he accepts donations directly from corporations. That means he's getting on the phone to their CEO's or lobbyists and asking them for money. And they're not giving it to him from the goodness of their hearts. They're making an investment.
I meet corporate execs from my district all the time - we have amazing companies that employ countless people. But when I do, I never worry that they might or might not give me money based on how I vote. And they don't have to worry about me hitting them up. We just talk policy.
That's what this no-corporate PAC pledge is about. It's not about saying that any money that ever passes through a corporation is bad! It's about being able to say that I don't owe them a thing, so I can make decisions solely based on what I think is right for my constituents.
I am also committed to a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited corporate spending on campaigns, and legislation to disclose all contributions to groups that influence elections.
My opponent has endorsed neither.
P.S., the corporations that have invested directly in Kean for this campaign include Koch Industries, the pharmaceutical company Allergan, and Genie Energy (a natural gas fracking company).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Persian Gulf countries like the UAE and Qatar don't gift planes to a US president or buy his worthless crypto coins for nothing. So what are they getting for their investment? Here are a few immediate examples. 1/
One - Trump is lifting a ban on exports of advanced chips to the Saudi & UAE AI industry. The ban aimed to keep this technology from leaking to China, and ensure that democracies, not mass surveillance dictatorships, lead global development of AI. 2/ finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-rew…
Two - Trump just decided to blow past Congressional objections and approve a helicopter and fighter jet maintenance deal with the UAE. Members of Congress had held the deal up because of the UAE's support for militias committing mass murder in Sudan.
Spare a thought for the small business owners who had to beg and borrow to pay a $145,000 tax on that $100K shipment of product that happened to arrive while the most extreme China tariff was in place, only to see their president back down with zero Chinese concessions. 1/
It could have been worse, so it's good Trump is caving again. But what now? Aggregate tariffs on China stay around 55%. China could repackage some promises on fentanyl to get that down a bit more but not by much. And we seem stuck with a 10% tariff/tax on all foreign imports. 2/
That's a permanent inflationary tax on us all - including on stuff like bananas and rubber for tires that can't be made in the US. It's a double tax on companies that manufacture in the USA - increasing the cost of parts & materials they import and tariffs on what they export. 3/
ICE's leaders seem drunk on the idea that the president can give them unrestrained power. But they work for the people of a pluralistic country, not for one man. The legitimacy this agency will need to continue to exist in a democratic society depends on them remembering that. 1/
When DHS was proposed, critics argued a democracy like ours should not have a single, big, powerful internal security ministry. I was less worried then - until the first Trump term, when we started seeing armed DHS elements with no insignia showing up at political protests. 2/
Democrats in Congress should say now how they'll bring DHS back within the rule of law once they have the power. Anyone with arrest authority should identify themselves, wear uniforms, no masks, and have the same duty to refuse unlawful orders as members of the military. 3/
When I ran the State Department's human rights bureau, few Senators were more interested in our work than Marco Rubio.
If I'd purged from our annual reporting references to stolen elections in Venezuela or unjust imprisonment in China, he'd have called for my resignation. 1/
The State Department is required by law to issue these annual public reports on human rights violations for every country. They are supposed to be "full and complete," covering every major category of human rights abuse, including "prolonged detention without charges." 2/
The point is to force us to be honest about the foreign governments we're dealing with - so that if the president wants to sell arms to a foreign country, or have a chummy relationship with its leader, he can't deny it's torturing prisoners or refusing to hold free elections. 3/
Democrats should take immediate action to force a vote in Congress on Trump's Canada/Mexico tariffs.
Make every House and Senate Republican either break with the president or own the economic consequences.
Can Democrats do this in the minority? Yes, they can. 1/
Trump used his emergency economic powers to impose the tariffs. Under the law, when presidents declare an "emergency," any member of Congress can move to terminate that emergency, and that motion is "privileged," meaning it must get an up or down vote. 2/sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R46…
My guess is a handful of Republicans would vote against these inflationary tariffs if the choice were forced on them. Trump could still veto a successful resolution to terminate the emergency. But that would just further highlight how alone he is in taking us off a cliff.
Not surprising JD would echo the arguments of the original "America First" fascist sympathizer Charles Lindbergh who tried to keep us from stopping Hitler.
Lindbergh similarly accused Jewish & British Americans of putting their original homelands' interests ahead of America.1 /
That Ukrainian-American man JD is scolding wasn't even asking us to fight Russia - just to arm Ukrainians so they could protect themselves, and our allies, from a Chinese backed Russian invasion of Europe.
He had a clearer sense of America's interests and values than our VP. 2/
I think it's wonderful that Americans of Polish, Jewish, Indian, Irish, Arab and other heritage have long urged us to care about the places their families came from. Every past president told them America is a friend to freedom everywhere. Too bad this one disagrees.