Community | January 24, 2010 | 49 comments

Obama turns up heat over ruling on campaign spending

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/us/politics/24address.html?hpw

Image
current89

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/us/politics/24address.html?hpw

WASHINGTON — President Obama took aim at the Supreme Court on Saturday, saying the justices had “handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists” with last week’s 5-to-4 decision to lift restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

The decision will have major political implications for this year’s midterm elections. After it was announced, Mr. Obama immediately instructed his advisers to work with Congress on legislation that would restore some of the limits the court lifted. But in his weekly address on Saturday, he sharply stepped up his criticism of the high court.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.”

How much the administration can do about the ruling remains unclear, although Mr. Obama said he had instructed his advisers to work with Congress on a “forceful, bipartisan response.”

That process got under way Friday, a White House official said, when Norm Eisen, Mr. Obama’s special counsel for ethics and government reform, met with two leading Democrats — Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland — to begin talks on how Congress might proceed.

The sharply divided decision overturned parts of a 2002 law — known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, after the two senators who sponsored it — that severely restricted political advertising paid for by corporations and unions in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before general elections.

The five justices who sided with the majority characterized it as a victory for the First Amendment and freedom of speech. The ruling was expected to unleash a torrent of attack advertisements in the coming midterm elections; many analysts said it would benefit Republicans in a year when Democrats are already on the defensive.

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly assailed the influence of “special interests” in blocking his proposed health care overhaul and tough new regulations on banks; in his address on Saturday, he warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling would make enacting legislation all the more difficult.

“All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs offshore,” Mr. Obama said, adding that the ruling would also make it “more difficult to pass common-sense laws” to promote energy independence or expand health care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/us/politics/24address.html?hpw
  1. groups:
    Community,   US Politics,   Current Democrats,   Civil Discussions,   1 more
  2. tags:
  3.     
    |

49 comments // Obama turns up heat over ruling on campaign spending

  • HowdyDo
  • carmalite
    • 0
      carmalite  

    • The more money. the more and louder free speech is what this means. And of course every single member of congress who does not have the $$$$$$$ to fight big evil corrupt corporations will either lose of be corrupted.
      Peaceful protest and Ghandi style tactics. This is the biggest affront to out Democracy in al of our lifetimes.

    • 3 years ago
  • JohnA
    • 0
      JohnA [removed]  

    • That's pretty funny coming from a man who reversed positions and refused public campaign funding for his own Presidential campaign and then raised more money than any Presidential campaign in history, mostly from anomous sources by way of the internet. What a hypocrite.

    • 3 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • ahiguy
    • 0
      ahiguy  
    • JohnA:

      It is a "crying" matter when the "grass roots" vast majority of which you speak seemingly are either illiterate, ignorant, special interests, welfare recipients, government employees, and or in some fashion on the governments dole... a sad state from which to claim an ideological victory, imho.

    • 3 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • JohnA
  • mitekillem
    • 0
      mitekillem  

    • Response to "GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER IS SCARIER THAN GIANT CORPORATIONS LIKE OIL & BANKS" - WRONG!!!!
      Here in the United States, WE, The people are the government. We get to say who does what. We do not have that power with corporations. What's scarier, being powerless and having a shadow government bribing their way out of the Government to force us into laws. Or a Government who answers to it's people despite corporate greed?

    • 3 years ago
  • mitekillem
    • 0
      mitekillem  
    • Image

    • CAPITALISM - EPIC FAIL!
      Seriously, Businesses are entities, but are not people, nor citizens. Does not apply to the constitution. Doesn't anyone see what's going on? The rich are trying to capitalize on the poor, and to control the nation. Media companies want to take away your FREE tv from the airwaves. They want to restrict your internet access based on the Cable TV model, where you have to pay for access to certain sites.
      FOXNEWS has created fear and sensationalism, for RATINGS! Which translates into MONEY!
      REPUBLICANS promote and support tax cuts for the rich, and "free enterprise", which hasn't been free for years, because no one can COMPETE with the GIANT corporations of today.

      1% of the US population controls 95% of it's wealth. Which means that you, I, and the US Government are left to fight over the remaining 1%. How is that fair? How is that a good system? How does tax cuts, to those who already have a lot of money, help the average joe? "It helps them to get jobs, and keep their jobs." FALSE. They can lay you off, to improve the worth of their stocks to get more money -with- or without tax breaks.

      While we have these tools, we can do anything...even take things back.
      1. VOTE - our voice is our weapon. Educate yourself on the person(s) who can do the most good, and put them in office.
      www.firetherulingclass.org
      2. VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR - At one time, the middle class was the engine of our economy. We can hurt businesses by financially starving them. If they promote something, or someone we don't like, they lose our business, and it goes to their competition.
      3. Freedom to Assembly - we can organize and plan. We have the freedom to gather together, to chose who supports us, and helps us, or we can give the money to their competition...or just with hold it altogether.

    • 3 years ago
  • ahiguy
    • 0
      ahiguy  

    • I fully understand and agree with the intended purpose of the SCOTUS ruling... yet needless to say there needs to be some form of legislation for completely restricting funding from corporations into the political realm.

      And I'm sure it really would not be that hard to do if we could actually elect honest politicians... oh wait, silly me, there I go again with an oxymoron.

    • 3 years ago
  • HowdyDo
  • lookatmypix
    • 0
      lookatmypix  

    • This can be a false campaign, the President and the Supreme court might just be playing good and bad cop with us.
      This is enough to give us some hope which is enough to silence us all, nothing will be done about it unless we, the People will raise our voices and step out of the deceiving realm of politics.

    • 3 years ago
  • EdJoyProductions
  • good_stuff
  • thedirtman
    • 0
      thedirtman  

    • Someone please explain to me how the First Amendment is protected by extending the right of free speech to non-humans - these constructs called corporations, which humans have given a role in which they must submit to in order to meet their basic needs of life.

      If a person is hungry and wants to buy food, a person must now allow a portion of that money to go to a corporation to finance political speech that would likely be counter to his own survival.

    • 3 years ago
  • courage
    • 0
      courage  

    • wow obumer and the dems had a lock on all the pre election propaganda seeing as most tv and newspapers and mags and hollywood are in there pocket dont forget the lawyers and the union mafia its so funny watching them cry.Fairness Doctrin ...ok president attacking people and companies by name.....ok people being attacked on senate floor..ok free speach...a abomination against mankind hahahahaThe dear leader and his party are really showing there true colors this year destroy the economy and silence dissent and you too can have a comunist revolution just like Chaves did.BIG GOVERMENT IS WAY SCARIER THAN BIG OIL and BANKS and the rest of the dems HATE LIST OF BIG AMERICA.

    • 3 years ago
  • Almibry
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  

    • Fine, if you want to run adds as a corporation, you can spend all of the money you want on adds.

      The best solution is as follows:

      Corporations, partnerships and other non-individual legal entities are free to spend all they want on campaigning. However, for every dollar they spend on lobbying, they must pay a $100 tax.

      You want to spend $10 million lobbying congress? You get to pay $1 billion in taxes.

      Now try to outspend individuals.

    • 3 years ago
  • Pajarito7
    • 0
      Pajarito7  

    • Hmm well, why don't we force everyone to vote and get rid of the bad electoral system. That way our votes will really count and not be screwed by these super rich congressman in a presidential campaign. This works for the Australians then why not for us? Besides America isn't a democracy if we don't have any voters. We need to limit the number of times a senator can be re-elected because for many there's a disadvantage to bring change. If everyone voted I bet more people would be conscience of who really is beneficial for our state and who is not and that way candidates would have to fight fair and square. . . but that's just me. I think half of America doesn't even know what's going on in our laws until it hits them right then.

      Corporations shouldn't have this power because they aren't citizens they are businesses. If we were socialists I'd beg to defer but because we are a free-market who can run business internationally from within the United States that means businesses have control, possibly of even foreign policy who's stretched out to poor countries. Don't you see its all about who gets the power? A business will do anything to make money, not to benefit the people. If businesses are allowed to intervene with politics then we should convert to a socialist-democracy.

    • 3 years ago
  • wefp17
  • VoyagerFilms
    • 0
      VoyagerFilms  

    • I wouldn't make the assumption Obama can't do much. With the American people behind him, it's still a Government of the people, for the people and by the people - to hell with corporations and Republicans trying to enrich themselves at our expense.

    • 3 years ago
  • Elligirl
  • Nephwrack
  • artemis6
  • hunzedog
  • Peachox
  • abehammy
  • tome_erau
  • tenletters
    • 0
      tenletters  

    • He's absolutely right about this one! No way in hell should NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and the Public Broadcasting System corporations be able to opine within 90 days of ANY election; local, state or national!!

    • 3 years ago
  • Drach
    • 0
      Drach  

    • "The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals." GOOD! Now strip them of their power and money.

    • 3 years ago
  • pvelectric
    • 0
      pvelectric  

    • Any citizen who challenges Obama on this nod to fascism ("Corporatism" as defined by Musollini) should remember he may be going to enact measures to improve government funding of elections, which could enable ordinary people not only the rich, to be able to run for office.

      This could be then a good thing or bad, because there are just as many good people and bad among the poor as among the rich. It is the constant prostituting of oneself for funds to run, and stay elected, that is the problem.

      Why not make all corporate TV ads free to any politician who gets X amont of pre-electoral say-sos? I know this kiss-ass to get money somehow demonstrates "acumen," but the public's business shouldn't be a matter of who can offer the biggest bribes.

      Capitalism as usual is its own worst enemy, destroying itself better than any of its opponents for the sake of short term gain.

    • 3 years ago
  • adveritas
    • 0
      adveritas  

    • I like how the general response to this article shows just how things like this happen. No one cares and that's what's really sad. Freedom of Speech cannot conflict with freedom, and without restraint there can never be the protection of that freedom. The ruling class is on the attack and they wish to create a matrix within the united states. Obama is clearly trying to fight this--just because he has to play the game to change it doesn't mean we should give up on him. We are all playing the game even if we stand for freedom, environmentalism, and social justice and so on, because we are a part of this system and we make it run and we benefit from it. Don't kid yourself.

    • 3 years ago
  • VoyagerFilms
    • 0
      VoyagerFilms  

    • I'm totally for Obama and the Democrats. The corrupt Republicans and their corrupt appointees in the Supreme Court are trying to steal all future elections again.

      I'd bet those 5 justices got some pretty fat pay-offs for this. What a bunch of crap.

      Go Obama!!!! Yes We Can!

    • 3 years ago
  • EdJoyProductions
  • Maitereya
  • tome_erau
  • carmalite
    • 0
      carmalite  
    • Maitereya:

      The extreme RW is violent and btw they have been collecting weapons of every kind for a long time. The lower classes who support them becauset they are either racist or brainwashed will join with the very people who will oppress them into abject poverty later. Peaceful protest will work Remember Gandhi getting the Brits out of India. Quit buying their garbage unless you absolutely can't do without something.

    • 3 years ago
  • Conniepae
    • 0
      Conniepae  

    • I agree with President Obama. This is one of the worst things I have seen come from the Supreme Court. I thought their ruling on the 2000 Election would be the worst, but to my surprise, now they have given the sad gift, that will keep giving. The wealth of ordinary Americans is a things of the past, due to corporate greed and they weren't even held accountable. Now they can use their ill gotten gain, to control who is and is not elected. Sad, sad, sad!

    • 3 years ago
  • Incredulous
    • 0
      Incredulous  
    • Conniepae:

      seems like there is something fundamentally wrong with this institution when they do not answer to anyone or anything....the Supreme Court no longer answers to the Constitution, and therefore no longer provides the checks and balances it was established to provide...now, it is all smoke and daggers.

      shameful decisions, shameful members, a pox on all their houses

    • 3 years ago
  • shanklinmike
  • ScottyT
  • cephas
  • Drach
    • 0
      Drach  
    • cephas:

      It appears that the only way for the lower to get their voices heard is to march on Washington. People, Shit like this has happened before, except last time, people actually got up and did something. Stop drinking yourself into stupidity and realize that your government should be working FOR YOU.

      This is what happens when the citizens don't pay attention to what the government is doing.

    • 3 years ago
  • phillyphil
  • Incredulous
  • JanforGore
  • JonRaymond
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  

    • Well he seems to be taking some action against this ruling. If he can get most or all of the restrictions put back in place through congress and/or the senate, then that would be something. I doubt it will happen, but a guy can dream.

    • 3 years ago
  • current89

top videos