Obama Turns Up Heat Over Ruling on Campaign Spending

[depakid]

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.

...“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.

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

A keen observer might also note for themselves that cases like this often produce http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-law-of-unintended-consequences.htm">a less than predictable set of dynamics

[Gman2]

1. Rethugs, unlike Haiti, would make a pact with the DEVIL, to achieve permenent majority.

And Pat Robertson too.

[dgibby]

2. “forceful, bipartisan response.”

Yeah,like that's worked so well for him. We are so screwn.