Michelle Lujan-Grisham on Corporations

Voted NO on workforce training by state block grants & industry partners.

Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act or SKILLS Act:
• Reauthorizes appropriations workforce investment systems for job training and employment services.
• Requires a plan describe:
  1. strategies and services to more fully engage employers and meet their needs, as well as those to assist at-risk youth and out-of-school youth in acquiring education, skills, credentials, and employment experience;
  2. how the state board will convene industry or sector partnerships that lead to collaborative planning;
  3. how the state will use technology to facilitate access to services in remote areas;
  4. state actions to foster partnerships with non-profit organizations that provide employment-related services; and
  5. the methodology for determining one-stop partner program contributions for the cost of the infrastructure of one-stop centers.
• Repeals title VI (Employment Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities)

National League of Cities op-ed, "H.R. 803 fails because it would:"
1. Undermine the local delivery system that has been the cornerstone of job training programs
2. Establish a program that is based on political boundaries (states) rather than on economic regions and local labor markets, or the naturally evolving areas in which workers find paying work
3. Eliminate a strong role for local elected officials but require that they continue to be fiscally liable for funds spent in their local areas
4. Change what was once a program targeted to those most in need--economically disadvantaged adults and youth and special population groups like veterans, migrant farm workers, and low income seniors--into a block grant to governors
5. Contribute to the emerging division between those American's who have the requisite skills to find employment and those who do not.

Supports tax incentives for job creation.

Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.

Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Economy: Do you support providing tax incentives to businesses for the purpose of job creation?'

Corporate political spending is not free speech.

Constitutional Amendment

1. Whereas the right to vote in public elections belongs only to natural persons, so shall the ability to make contributions and expenditures to influence the outcome of public elections belong only to natural persons.
2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power of Congress and the States to protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, limit the corrupting influence of private wealth in public elections, and guarantee the dependence of elected officials on the people alone by taking actions which may include the establishment of systems of public financing for elections, or the imposition of requirements to ensure the disclosure of [election] contributions and expenditures.
3. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to alter the freedom of the press.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:[Supreme Court majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, for which the Constitutional Amendment is proposed as a remedy. The FEC had ruled that the movie "Hillary", released in 2008 to persuade voters against Hillary Clinton, was illegal because it was a disguised campaign contribution made by a corporation. The Supreme Court overruled the FEC]:

Modern day movies might portray public officials in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission [is broadcast] during the blackout period, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, [instead of a candidate or donors, paid] in order to engage in political speech. Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be [unfair]; those assessments, however, are not for the Government to make.