Archive for Sunday, January 24, 2010

Obama upset with campaign finance ruling

January 24, 2010

Advertisement

— The White House and Democratic lawmakers are moving swiftly to come up with new restraints on corporate political spending, including advertising limits on any company receiving bailout money, to blunt the impact of a Supreme Court ruling President Barack Obama calls “devastating.”

Obama on Saturday unloaded on a divided Supreme Court for allowing more corporate influence over elections, intensifying his criticism of a ruling that has suddenly reshaped campaign rules in the midst of a midterm election year. The court’s 5-4 decision on Thursday allows companies and unions to spend freely on ads that promote or target particular candidates by name, and lifts the barring of union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of campaigns.

“We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans,” Obama said Saturday, devoting his weekly radio and Internet address to the topic. “And we don’t intend to.”

Comments

jaywalker 5 years, 7 months ago

"drown out the voices of everyday Americans"

That would be funny if it weren't so hypocritical. While I agree the Court's ruling is disturbing and does not bode well for the future, the President now crying foul about someone else ignoring the "everyday Americans" (what the heck is that garbage anyway?!) is laughable. Didn't seem to be a problem for him when he needed Nelson's vote for his healthcare bill. The "everyday Americans" of that state didn't want that bill, but $100 million bought their elected official. Where's the difference, Mr. President? Who drowned out the voices then?

jafs 5 years, 7 months ago

Actually, Thing, unions were limited in their spending before this ruling as well.

Although I agree that big money to politicians is a problem regardless of where it comes from.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 7 months ago

"Although I agree that big money to politicians is a problem regardless of where it comes from."

Yea, while any union donations will largely promote the interests of primarily middle- and lower-middle class workers, and not the überwealthy the way corporate money will, they are still fairly narrow in their worldview.

Unions won't be able to even come close matching corporate money, this ruling means that politicians will have to satisfy the demands of either unions or corporations even moreso than in the past.

georgiahawk 5 years, 7 months ago

Thing, this issue should not be a conservative v. liberal issue! Open your eyes to what this really means for the common man/woman. Our voice in the democratic process is what is at stake. Let the corporations sell me products that I can buy, they should stay out of my life otherwise.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 7 months ago

David Korten has pointed out this interesting contradiction-- in a ruling full of them.

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

"The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts."

kugrad 5 years, 7 months ago

Claiming that corporations should have the same rights as individuals is ridiculous. The laws that blocked this, which endured for a century and were clearly constitutional, were intended to curb abuses and protect the democratic process. I'm still waiting to hear the right-wing neoconservatives attack the ruling as "judicial activism," which is precisely what it is. The only people celebrating this ruling are people who feel the undue influence of corporate contributions will favor their point of view. It clearly isn't about a groundswell of public opinion in favor of granting corporations (and Unions) the rights of individuals. It certainly isn't about leveling the playing ground to improve democracy.

jaywalker 5 years, 7 months ago

"Our voice in the democratic process is what is at stake."

While I agree with ya, georgia, that this ruling was a blow for all regardless of party affiliation, our voice in the process has been a beyond hoarse for some time now. The more power we give our government (i.e. healthcare industry) the more irrelevant (and inaudible) "everyday Americans" become.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 7 months ago

"The more power we give our government (i.e. healthcare industry) the more irrelevant (and inaudible) “everyday Americans” become."

Yea, like we're soooo relevant to the private health insurance companies, Big Pharma and the mega-corp HMO's.

jaywalker 5 years, 7 months ago

"Yea, like we're soooo relevant to the private health insurance companies, Big Pharma and the mega-corp HMO's"

Huh? Was there a comparison put out there, bozo? My point was our government is already way too powerful so granting them control over 1/6 our economy makes them that much more so, and in turn makes us more irrelevant.
Talk about being contrary for contrary's sake. Feel free to go soak your head.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 7 months ago

" Was there a comparison put out there, bozo?"

"The more power....the more irrelevant (and inaudible)"

Pretty much. You apparently have no problems with the fact that the status quo makes us irrelevant and inaudible, as well as uninsured and/or broke from the high premiums.

jaywalker 5 years, 7 months ago

"Pretty much. "

Mmkay, pumkin, point out where I made the comparison.

"You apparently have no problems with the fact that the status quo makes us irrelevant and inaudible"

Whaaaaat?! That's what you got out of my previous posts here? That I have no problems with all this or being voiceless? Can you read? Are you sober?

", as well as uninsured and/or broke from the high premiums."

Again...what are you babbling about? Go to another string if you wanna talk about healthcare. I'm talking about the article and the power of government over its citizens.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 7 months ago

"point out where I made the comparison."

I already did. Maybe you missed out on the lesson on comparatives in English class.

"Go to another string if you wanna talk about healthcare."

You brought it up, not me.

"The more power we give our government (i.e. healthcare industry)"

sfjayhawk 5 years, 7 months ago

This ruling was bad for every individual. More than ever our government will be dominated by special interests and the k street crowd. Very likely the final nail for the ideal of government for the people.

Liberty275 5 years, 7 months ago

Q: What do you get when you cross jimmy carter with hugo chavez?

A: barack obama.

Liberty275 5 years, 7 months ago

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see anything in there limiting free speech to "persons", although I do see it granted to entities that are now corporations. If The New York Times has the right to free speech, then under the 14th amendment, they all do.

Unless of course, we are to agree with obama and believe some corporations are more equal than others for the sake of political expediency without regard for the constitution.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 7 months ago

"I don't see anything in there limiting free speech to “persons”"

There isn't anything limiting it to chicken, goats or sheep, either. Or excluding them for that matter.

Maybe they were talking about trolls (even though Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet.)

jaywalker 5 years, 7 months ago

"I already did"

Sure ya did.

"You brought it up, not me."

“The more power we give our government (i.e. healthcare industry)”

Yes, the healthcare industry was brought up as a gross example of power going to the government, not as a topic unto itself. Shocking that you'd confuse the issue.

"There isn't anything limiting it to chicken, goats or sheep, either. Or excluding them for that matter"

Brilliant. Because that's so relevant, that is.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 7 months ago

Since Dear Leader's campaign website was set up to accept untraceable cash donations, does he have any ground to stand on when yakking about campaign financing reform?

Liberty275 5 years, 7 months ago

"There isn't anything limiting it to chicken, goats or sheep, either. Or excluding them for that matter. "

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Well played sir. Obama should send you a medal.

Sigmund 5 years, 7 months ago

Liberty275 (Anonymous) says… "Well played sir. Obama should send you a medal."

Or at least exempt your Caddy Health Care Plan from being taxed.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 7 months ago

More desperate thrashing from the regime that can't shoot straight....

"Obamaites Caught in "Letter-Writing" Astroturfing Campaign

Patterico, The Cleavland Plain Dealer and some other intrepid souls have uncovered what appears to be a genuine astroturfing campaign by Obamacrats who are writing boilerplate pro-Obama letters to newspaper editorial sections across the nation.

They use different handles like "Ellie Light," "Mark Spivey," and a host of made up names, made up info about their residences and cut-and-pasted replications of Obama Administration propaganda. Newspapers across the country, of course, found these letters very compelling and printed them without knowledge that they were being used as willing dupes in this political astroturf operation."

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/200623.php

Liberty275 5 years, 7 months ago

"Or at least exempt your Caddy Health Care Plan from being taxed. "

Ours is just under the price the senate set, but it doesn't matter because in all likelihood the junior senator from Massachusetts torpedoed the entire stupid plan.

"they use different handles like “Ellie Light,” “Mark Spivey,” and a host of made up names, made up info about their residences and cut-and-pasted replications of Obama Administration propaganda"

Was there a "merrill" on that copypasta astroturf list?

jaywalker 5 years, 7 months ago

"Wow, ComradeRedTroll busted a blood vein there. Bit upset, aren't you?"

Not that I agree with the tack taken by your opponent here, but any chance you'd like to answer his challenge or are you just gonna evade?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.