To disrupt the flow of funds to Illicit Networks around the world, and this is one of those things thats going to stay in place. And all of those entities, iranian or otherwise, that were designated for their support of any terrorist organization are going to stay sanctioned. That includes banks designated for those reasons, one an iranian bank that was related to hezbollah financing. Theyre going to stay sanctioned. Now, the real powerful aspect of this is part of these sanctions that were imposed under the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and divestment act, the bill passed by congress in 2010, that bill said if you are a foreign bank and you do business one of these people on our list, if you help them transit money to, from iran to lebanon or any other place or even from iran to london for completely peaceful activity, doesnt matter, it can get cut off the from the United States financial system. That is stay anything place, and that is well understood by the iranians. S
The gentleman for his response, mr. Speaker. The question was yes we want to get people back to work. Everybody wants to get people back to work. There is no doubt about that. Hopefully, we would be at full employment. One defines that whether three percent or four percent unemployment which would be transition employment or unemployment. We want everybody back to work. The issue is if we dont get everybody back to work, 192,000 new jobs this past month that is good but not good enough. Is why we have continuing 6. 7 unemployment. My question to the majority assume forif argument that the letter to which he refers is accurate. I dont accept that premise but accepting that premise but the minute with the majority leader be amenable to rather than do what the senate does making a retrospective so that the 3. 5 months that wouldve gone from january 1 or december 29, i suppose, of last year to today and paying that back. Simply extending for five months while people continue to look for em
Individual of 123,000 all the way up to about 3. 5 million if you look at the amounts an individual can contribute to and party,didates committees, combined. A major influx of big money into the political process. Our organization has estimated about 1 billion to political spending in the next election. And is that a good thing, a bad thing, a neutral thing . Think its i think its disaster for our democracy. Why . We already had a system in which the wealthiest few are able to exert so much more elected systemr and our elected representatives than the rest of us and a like this just makes a bad situation worse. Donald mcgahn, do you agree opinion . No, i dont. Why . Upon a fewed assumption that i dont think are necessarily true. First, the idea that theres going to automatically be 1 billion of new money in elections is frankly, with all respect, ridiculous. People in this country can spend on their owney independent of candidates already. This has been the case for years going back to
Spectrum and local broadcast stations has risen perhaps ahead of the incentive auction next year. So for a variety of reasons, weve seen a number of companies consolidate their positions in the broadcast tv market. Theyve fought stations across the country bought stations across the country. Weve seen Certain Companies really being aggressive in terms of snapping up smaller broadcasts. Host so with a company like sinclair, how Many Television stations does it own across the country . Guest i believe i dont know the number off the top of my head, i believe they own something in excess of a hundred stations. They have a number of these joint Sales Agreements in place. Theyre one of the companies that will likely be with impacked by this. Impacted by this. In some cases broadcasters can get waivers if they can prove these joint Sales Agreements are necessary to keep the smaller station afloat or so they can provide local or news programming. However, in most cases it appears theyre going