Obama lashes out at campaign finance ruling

[underpants]

Source: AP/MSNBC

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Saturday sharply criticized a Supreme Court decision easing limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions, saying he couldn't "think of anything more devastating to the public interest." He also suggested the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda.

Portraying himself as aligned with the people and not special interests, Obama said the decision was unacceptable.

"This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," the president said in his weekly radio and Internet message. "It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way — or to punish those who don't."

"I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest," he said. "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."

"We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans," Obama said. "And we don't intend to."

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35028896/ns/politics-white_house

[AndyA]

1. If he only means what he says.

With Obama, you never really know these days.

He seems to indicate he's aligned with the American people, but so many of his actions in office don't mesh with that stance. He fixed Wall Street and ignored Main Street. And he's surrounded himself with people in his administration who very well could be part of the problems we have today.

Why?

If you're going to bring about change, why keep the same people in place who have been a contributing factor to those problems?

Obama needs to clean house. He can start with Emmanuel, Geitner, Bernanke, and just go on down the line.

[harun]

3. There are going to be plenty of bills coming his way to address this issue.

I am not optimistic he (or the Dem leadership) will actually do what is needed, which is pass items like Grayson's set of bills.

I'm hearing the talk but I am not seeing the walk.

[customerserviceguy]

35. So what?

They'll all be un-Constitutional. The only answer is a Constitutional amendment, and while the President has no official role in that, he can use leadership in trying to persuade Congress to pass something. It'll take a 2/3rds majority in each branch, so he's got his work cut out for him.

This really is a golden opportunity. On the heels of the defeat of HCR, he can re-establish the mantle of leadership if he can unite the Democratic Party on this, leaving only Pukes to oppose it. It's our ticket back to winning the 2010 elections, if he plays his cards right.

[harun]

43. They will NOT be un-Constitutional. Congress has the power to tax, one of Grayson's

bills taxes to death these contributions, 500% last I looked. Supreme Court couldn't touch that.

[customerserviceguy]

49. Good point, but risky

If it looks like the intent is to freeze political speech, then it could be overturned. A safer way is to just simply pass a law that says that political contributions are not tax deductable for corporations, the same way it currently is for individuals. That might pass muster.

[harun]

58. Yah, lots of options. They are not powerless to just take this ruling and allow

our democracy to transform in to full blown fascism.

[No Elephants]

53. Even the power to tax is not absolute. What if Congress decided to put a 500% tax on

newspapers that support nuclear disarmament?

[reformist]

44. Public finance of elections wouldn't be unconstitutional.

[customerserviceguy]

50. True, but it is politically possible?

A recession is no time for Congress to vote themselves money from the Treasury.

[No Elephants]

54. How do you know that? If you say public financing is the exclusive way to go, then don't you run

right up against the Citizens United decision?

[bemildred]

29. It will be a telling decision.

He has the opportunity here to ride the populist white horse and kick some ass, and he is using strong language, now if he follows through ...

[rsmith6621]

2. Why Does It Take Obama Two Days to Think of......

........words to respond....that is getting old.....does he know how to respond off the cuff???....

I guess this is sensitive territory being as though he probably has a corporation or two helping him to call the shots in exchange for $$$$ tooooooo.

[underpants]

7. Because he had the bank thing to discuss the day before?

:shrug:

and he had to read the opinion (or have someone read it)

not making excuses just throwing that out there for consideration

[rsmith6621]

14. nice excuse...I thought he....

could walk and chew gum at the same time....he said so..

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. It didn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7552549&mesg_id=7552549


See post #3.

[Bette Noir]

33. As he said to a FOX droid at a news conference months ago,

"Because I like to know what I'm talking about before I open my mouth."

[rapturedbyrobots]

39. yes

they're called goldman sachs.

biggest corporate donor to his campaign...second largest contributor overall after university of california.

also the source of many member of his admin.

he has to walk a tight rope balancing between the populist message dems need to get through the midterms and not really pissing of goldman sachs and the rest of the finance industry. so no, he can't answer off the cuff.

[stellad]

4. The constitutional scholar is shocked - the corporatist in him doesn't give a rat's ass

Besides, 60 votes weren't enough.
He needs 90 votes to get anything done. Even then, you can't have one Republican complaining. It wouldn't be bipartisan!

[underpants]

5. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Rozlee]

46. Yep, and he did say that magic word--I mean, dirty word, --bipartisan.

We are so screwed.

[Mari333]

6. Then DO SOMETHING about it

start kicking some ass.

[mikehiggins]

8. Has there been a widespread drop in the IQ overnight?

If this SCOTUS ruling stands Obama will definitely be a one term president.

That's just for starters.

The same thing goes for every elected official across the US.

Even the GOPukes have to see that.

How to fix it? Remove the SCOTUS authority to consider cases dealing with this issue. Then pass a bill eliminating the treatment of corporations as people.

Yeah, I'm no constitutional scholar but I do know that Congress can remove entire realms of jurisprudence from the purview of the SCOTUS. In this case I think you really will see bipartisanship and in a hurry. I would not be surprised to see some action taken before the Summer.

Things are not as bad as they seem.

[bemildred]

12. I agree.

You got any salt?
:popcorn:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. When was the last time Congress tried to gag the SCOTUS?

[bemildred]

17. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." nt

[ElmoBlatz]

23. How would you recommend congress "gag" the SCOTUS?

Are you familiar with the separation of powers?

[PSPS]

34. Didn't they pass a law removing the release of the torture photos from their review?

Of course, this was another Obama U-Turn®, but I thought after the lower courts repeatedly ordered their release despite U-Bama's bushish refusal to do so, congress passed a law removing the issue from further judicial review.

[No Elephants]

55. The Republicans were going to remove jurisdiction to hear certain religious cases, weren't they?

[stellad]

9. "Obama Lashes Out at Wall Street" - January 29, 2009

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june09/econwrapkh_01-29.html

[stellad]

10. "Obama lashes out against dishonest insurers" - October 17, 2009

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama-lashes-out-health-insurers

[boppers]

45. 1,570,000 hits.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,570,000 for "Obama lashes out". (0.30 seconds)

[cufford]

11. Deja vu

Anyone remember his empty presidential campaign rhetoric too?

Of course neither he, nor anyone else in power, will do anything about anything which leads to the displeasure of the corporate leaders.

[Fearless]

18. +1

[Demeter]

13. Prove It!

Fire the boys from Goldman Sachs. Prosecute war crimes. Pull the troops out of Iraw and Iran, and bring home the bombers.

Let Chavez and Castro send aid to Haiti unimpeded. Bring succor, not imperialism.

Start defunding corporate welfare, especially the military-industrial complex.

Do SOMETHING! Don't just pontificate!

[Autumn]

16. Talk is easy ,

show us.

[Plucketeer]

19. ACTION

beats the livin' SNOT outta words. :grr:

[DeSwiss]

21. "...decision was unacceptable."

Oh really?

Actually I think it's the Filthy Five who are unacceptable. Or rather, the Filthy Four and The Senile Grampa.

So I suppose we'll be seeing some really forthright "action" coming from the Oval Office any minute now, huh? Really, really soon, right? To counteract this hellish assault by these Fascists upon the body of Democracy? Right? Right?

- Right. Thank you Rahm.....

[groundloop]

22. What the Fuck is wrong with everyone here???

Our President makes a statement that he is outraged with this terrible Supreme Court decision, and people here don't believe that? What the hell else can he do about it? According to the constitution not a hell of a lot. It feels like I've woken up from a bad dream and walked into Freeperville.

One of two things has to happen - either Congress has to pass campaign finance laws that will not go against this new ruling (seeing as how if a new law is challenged anytime soon it will come up against the very same Justices), or else a Constitutional Amendmant needs to be passed declaring that corporations are not citizens. Either way is going to be difficult, and the President has precious little to do with implementing either one. About all he CAN do is use his position to let his opinion be known, and he has.

[wordpix]

24. +1 totally agree - the pres has been trying for consensus, & now realizes he can't get it

He's getting tough, finally, so let's give him some support instead of tearing him down further.

[atreides1]

26. He can follow through

He's been outraged before but did little, and while he may not be able to introduce legislation, his party controls Congress and he can get Reid and Pelosi to do it.

First he has to give up this whole compromise idea because compromise isn't giving opponents everything they want. Then he has to let certain members know that if they don't play the game he wants to play they better not expect anything from the White House when they need it.

He has to kick ass and take names, he has to show the American people that he's willing to fight for us, not the corporate hierarchy, just like he said he was during his campaign.

In other words he has to walk the walk.

[underpants]

27. I have no idea

this place is off the freakin' hook recently

[Parker CA]

36. +1

[Frank Booth]

42. It's now cool on DU to criticize Obama for everything he does, regardless of whether it's

potentially good or not. It takes too much effort to consider that there's not always one right or wrong answer, or that Obama may make some good decisions and some bad decisions.

[L0oniX]

25. So what is he going to do about it? NOTHING!

[and-justice-for-all]

28. "Portraying himself as..."!!! FUCK YOU MSNBC!!! FUCK YOU!

[rapturedbyrobots]

40. the problem is

i think obama might actually believe the populist rhetoric he uses. so i don't agree that he's 'trying' to portray himself as a populist. but in the end he's a staunch neoliberal....and very soon he will have to come to terms with the fact that these two things are not reconcilable. the public already has. and they are now watching closely to see which he chooses.

[Little Star]

48. Bingo

[and-justice-for-all]

52. Not exactly...nt

[samsingh]

30. Obama is the President now - why doesn't he do something about it

he has a majority in the House and the Senate. I can't believe that we can't govern unless we have 60+ Senators on side on every issue. That's crap.

[C_Lawyer09]

59. You hit the nail on the head

My expectation of Obama wasn't luke warm government, or effort toward such, under near perfect circumstances. My expectation was a fighter for the common man, after eight years of garbage. And I was realistic to think he would truly fight under worse conditions than he currently enjoys. I thought this, because I naievely figured he had fire in his belly and truly was a change agent. He's not, he's a well educated lawyer who likes to study things, avoid confrontation, and revert back to rhetoric instead of leading from the front. This is unfortunate, because I really feel he has squandered so much good will and support of those whom saw him as the embodiment of change. I tried to ignore the writing on the wall, and close my eyes, as he more or less re-created the Clinton cabinet. Not neccessarily a slam on Clinton, but clearly indicative of a luke warm corporate friendly presidency, heavy on the wonkishness.

[reformist]

31. The time for public finance of elections has come.

Since it's highly unlikely anything can be done anytime soon to reverse this week's horrible Supreme Court decision, the only immediate remedy would be to move forward on public finance of elections. Every candidate for national office who can get their name on the ballot should receive a fixed sum, enough to allow them to be at least competitive with the well-heeled candidates. And this money should be provided before the party primaries, not just the general election.

[No Elephants]

56. Please see Reply 54. Public financing will not solve anything

unless public funds are the exclusive source of financing. And, if any law says that, that law might be unconstitutional under the Citizens United decision.

[bossy22]

32. many people forget

that the law is neither right nor wrong- its the law (law being in this case the constitution). While i am not agreeing with the decision im merely commenting on what i merely see as a misunderstanding of how the legal system works. the legal system (and im talking about this in a consitutional sense) isnt designed to right wrongs, level the playing field, or be the dispenser of "fairness"; it's designed to interpret constitution. Therefore if the provision in question creates "unfairness" than the ruling will create "unfairness".

In short, the courts arent there to "better or democracy" or make it more "open and fair", they are there to inteperet a law.

[No Elephants]

57. Which Constitutional provision gives rights to corporations? Which Constitutional provision

creates unfairness? (Before answering that, I mean the Constitution as it reads and has been interpreted before this case, not as it read in 1789.)


This case does a lot more than interpret the Constitution. It makes new corporate law, IMO, usurping the time honored discretion of the legislature to decide which rights corporations have.

This is another instance that reveals Scalia's claims of being strict constructionist and "originalist" for the crap that they are. And his little dog, too.

[Wilms]

37. Funny guy. n/t

[SoapBox]

38. "Obama lashes out..." Why lashes?

...why does it seem (ohhh, I know, I'm just sensitive) that when it's a Dem or Progressive, that articles like to say that we LASH out?

[Rozlee]

47. In reality, though, what they don't know, is that if Obama is lashing out, it's with a wet noodle

God, the pain.







:hurts:

[Frank Booth]

41. "Portraying himself as aligned with the people and not special interests"

That's some nice, subtle editorializing by the AP.

[D23MIURG23]

51. Thats great. Wake me up when he is proposing specific policy ideas. n/t