I've been beyond surprised at the negative feedback my post has received. As shocking and dubious as the claim sounds, it's as black and white as I have described the situation to be.
People are assuming I'm omitting information and quoting things out of context , I wish it was. I feel people talk out their ass without informing themselves. So for those, here is an explanation in layman's terms. Every year congress gets together and writes spending bills. They designated what they are going to fund and how much they will spend stately and federally. The biggest and most expensive one is the Defense Appropriations Bill. In that bill money is alloted for military pay, medical care for troops, military equipment, overseas military costs and spending, and money for private contractors (soldier for hire). Mind you, the U.S. has almost 1.5 MILLION soldiers on active duty at this time sustaining this empire. We still have hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany and hundreds of thousands in China, has anyone given the Pentagon the heads up that WW1 and 2 are over. The U.S spends double what the ENTIRE European union spends on it's military expenditures. That means we spend double the amount of the next 27 countries combined. That's ridiculous, and why we don't have universal healthcare, but I'll save that for another debate.
So, to the Appropriations Bill, Franken's amendment is just one stipulation. It is not a few things that he wants to add or sneak into his anti-rape amendments, just plain and simply and short bar federal funds from going to defense contractors that continue to apply mandatory arbitration clauses to claims of sexual assault, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, retention and supervision. The amendment also covers civil rights claims of workplace discrimination, which basically is just enforcing and extending laws that exist within the boarders of the United States, to U.S citizens that work for U.S companies abroad. That's it. The arguments the Republican Senators made about it not being congresses job to be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts is just preposterous, and Franken's amendment does not require already existing contracts changed or modified, it is for future contracts to not be allowed to have the the mandatory arbitration's. Beyond that, the constitution it's self says it is.
In 1987, by a vote of 7-2 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Congressional legislation that required stated to raise their legal drinking age to 21 as a condition of receiving their full allotment of federal highway funds. South Dakota was arguing that such a requirement violated congressional power and the 21st amendment which repealed prohibition and gave the states and not the federal government authority over alcoholic beverage. Supreme court decided Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives. If the Defense Appropriations bill allows congress to limit contractors on what bonuses they can give and what kind of healthcare contractors can offer, then why do these thirty male republicans think that they can't impose a simple 'no mandatory arbitration's in case of rape...' clause.
I'm still doing my homework on campaign donations of private contractors. I can only assume that that's a huge reason behind the nay votes of these republican senators. But may I add, Democrats have also received generous donations by private contractors, and they voted for the bill. Sometimes, somethings are just so wrong that you can't go along with them. This is one of those times.
Check out this video to see Jon Stewarts' comments on the story: