Live Breaking News & Updates on Corporations aren t
Stay updated with breaking news from Corporations aren t. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
compelling when you have an argument or discussion with someone in the office. i mean, that you miss when you are alone. my dogs can't talk. we communicate but we don't have that intellectual back and forth. >> jessica: if there is a back to your fourth. i was pregnant during covid, you are very pro office, greg. >> greg: my grandfather used to say people who work remotely are remotely working. >> jessica: did he really say that? >> greg: yes, he tested pajamas at home. you've got to love musk, he is a pure madman. corporations aren't designed to be your guidance counselor. i am tired of virtue signaling, i am tired getting emails every single day about a new month or a new week or a new day. i miss the days of the little,
what does breaking this corporate strangle hold look like to you in a minute? >> there are two things. one is to name it, run on it and get a broad mandate from the american people to accomplish it. when you look at the structural reforms that i proposed, there are four of them that are specific. the first one is term limits for congress and senators of 12 years. the second is a national referendum. if there's a time limit, overwhelming number of american citizens want something but the congress won't give it to them such as common sense gun legislation, you go directly to the voters. the third is to make sure it's easy to make sure it's easy to vote and no voter suppression and we need to get rid of the idea corporations are people. corporations aren't people and that legal fiction in where they hang all of their legal corruption and this corporate takeover of our government. that's it in a nutshell, ali.
there's not a corporation in this country that pays taxes. it's the consumer that pays taxes. >> there's no lever that's going to change that. corporations aren't going to change their behavior and stop passioning it on to consumers, because you give them a lower tax rate. they will pocket the money. you will see it in dividends, in share buybacks. there's no lever that's going to save the consumer. >> that's where you and i would differ. i was in the business world for 30 years. i had businesses. i had to always worry about my quarterly tax payments i. couldn't add employees. i couldn't wage raceraise wages. >> that's not the case in the current climate. look at the stock market. corporate america is booming. today is a huge earnings day. we are seeing earnings off the charts in large part because of low interest rates. that's not changing. >> we have a chart up right now. i know you can't see it. it's a chart of the s&p 500 from march 9, 2009 to now. as you are familiar with this.
of political advertising in a campaign season. corporations aren't just exxon mobil and so, there are a bunch of people that incorporate as 501 c4s, social welfare organizations, but are going to be getting a lot of adds in and don't have to disclose their donors. the question is, well, these things that say they're 501c4s, the irs has to stay what is the standard, what do you learn about what the irs is supposed to do when faced with this genuinely difficult question. these people say they're going to be a social welfare organization. which side of the line do they fall on? >> here's the main thing i learned from this. the people in cincinnati who are charged with looking at the applications and deciding if a c4 group is going to do permissible political activity, don't themselves understand the irs rules for what is
for tax-exempt status. joining me tonight, political reporter for the "new york times" who has done some of the besteporting on m has a fantastic piece in "the times" today about the context of this. but first, all right, you and i both read this report. a long series of tweets, and it is, i mean, saying like, oh, my god, this treasury, irs inspector general report is interesting sounds ridiculous. but it is really fascinating. >> it is fascinating if you've been watching from the outside. then you have 54 pages of here's how it works. here's what happened. it's like peering into the recesses of the most secret of agency that isn't involved in intelligence work in the government. >> i want to just set the table for folks. then i want to talk about what you found in this report. the table is -- citizens united says corporations can spend out of political advertising in a campaign season. corporations aren't just exxon
joining me tonight, political reporter for the "new york times" who has done some of the best reporting on dark money in politics. has a fantastic piece in the times today about the context of this, but first, all right, you and i both read this report. a long series of tweets, and it is, i mean, saying like, oh, my god, this treasury, irs inspector general report is interesting sounds ridiculous. >> it is fascinating if you've been watching from the outside, then you have 54 pages of here's how it worked, what happened. it's like peering into the recesses of the most secret of agency. >> i want to just set the table for folks. the table is -- citizens united says corporations can spend out of political advertising in a campaign season. corporations aren't just exxon
mobil.a nch of people that incorporate as 501 c4s, social welfare organizations. but are going to be getting a lot of ads in and don't have to disclose their donors. the question is, well, these things that say they're 501-c4s, and aren't necessarily political, have to go through all of this political stuff. the irs has to stay what is the standard, what do you learn about what the irs is supposed to do when faced with this genuinely difficult question. these people say they're going to be a social welfare organization. they're also clearly political. which side of the line do they fall on? >> here's the main thing i learned from this. the people in cincinnati who are charged with looking at the applications and deciding if a c4 group is going to do permissible political activity, don't themselves understand the irs rules for what is permissible activity. now, it's not totally surprising. >> literally it said in the report, we don't know.
those are sort of your options. if i have to choose one of those i'll go with the corporate donors. i don't know what else you're supposed to do. it's better than having the taxpayers pay for it. >> corporate donor, you owe them. that's the problem. >> i think that is what the whole system is based on. unfortunately. that's why we need campaign finance reform. the way it is now, you are sort of already receiving money from corporations, right? you're now saying corporations aren't allowed to give money to the campaign? >> i'm saying when you give, you will one day receive. >> corporations aren't allowed to give campaign. it's against the law for 80 years. look, i don't really care about this, except for hypocrisy angle. this guy campaigned vociferously about getting corporate money out. granted waivers likcandy. to lobbyists that get in there. it's just one of the last cards to be flipped on the hypocrisy on this. i would like to see him go up there with a nascar suits like
corporations aren't going to go to heaven and hell. they have no soul. whatsoever the owners don't get me wrong the owners have such rights. >> they are the company. >> laura: hoohold on. you are saying this is a standing question. if the greens had filed the lawsuit as individuals and not on behalf of the company that provides the insurance they would have a meritorious claim is that what you are saying? >> it is the corporation that is paying the tax not the owners and you can imagine the anarchy and the practical consequences if all for profit corporations closely held by corporations to have the owners say we don't have is to pay this particular tax because it is against our religion. >> a measure that directly contradicts their religious views and beliefs. go ahead. >> don't you you love that now it is a tax. when it was argued to the supreme court nobody wanted to say the tax word and now, of course, it as tax. here is the problem with chip's
corporations aren't going to go to heaven and hell. they have no soul. whatsoever the owners don't get me wrong the owners have such rights. >> they are the company. >> laura: hoohold on. you are saying this is a standing question. if the greens had filed the lawsuit as individuals and not on behalf of the company that provides the insurance they would have a meritorious claim is that what you are saying? >> it is the corporation that is paying the tax not the owners and you can imagine the anarchy and the practical consequences if all for profit corporations closely held by corporations to have the owners say we don't have is to pay this particular tax because it is against our religion. >> a measure that directly contradicts their religious views and beliefs. go ahead. >> don't you you love that now it is a tax. when it was argued to the supreme court nobody wanted to say the tax word and now, of course, it as tax. here is the problem with chip's