Obama unloads on high court over campaign finance [Archive] - Debate Policy

82Marine89

01-24-2010, 01:22 AM

Hey B.O. :fu:You're the one who wipes his ass with the Constitution.

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."

Read more about Barry's temper tantrum... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_campaign_finance)

sgtdmski

01-24-2010, 06:13 AM

See here is the problem. Corporations receive monies from the government and now they want to limit there speech, but, so do unions. Well if u give money to one and then disallow them from free speech u cannot expect the Court to allow the other to continue with lobbying. Had the administration disallowed anyone who received monies from government from contributing there would be no problem.

The fact is Republicans accept the contributions from corporations and Democrats accept those from unions. If we cut off the funding from both, there would be no legal issue.

Unfortunately, Dems try to cut off funding from corporations and Repubs try to cut it off from unions, if they would both come together and cut off both we would have much better elections!!!!

dmk

DragonStryk72

01-24-2010, 08:01 AM

true, sgt, but here, we're seeing exactly what you spoke on, Obama is talking only about hitting the corporations. This of course is just politics, since he was backed by the unions in the first place.

red states rule

01-24-2010, 09:15 AM

So let me get this straight. Obama the candidate first promised to take public money - then takes public money (and raises record amounts of cash)

and the liberal media loved it

Now Obama, and the liberal media, is pissed that other candidates can now do the same?

Obama raises record $66 million in August

The latest figures may bolster expectations of a money advantage that Obama could have over Republican candidate John McCain in the final two months before the November 4 election.

Opinion polls show that the race between Obama, an Illinois senator, and McCain, an Arizona Republican is dead even.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the August figure was helped by 500,000 new donors. The tally for the latest month exceeded the $55 million for February, which marked a record for Obama and an all-time high for any presidential candidate during a primary.

After far surpassing McCain in private fundraising, earlier this year Obama opted against taking public funds for the final stretch of the campaign.

McCain, who chose to take public financing, has access to an infusion of $84 million from a government presidential election fund for the period between the Republican convention and the November 4 election.

In August, his last month of private fundraising, McCain took in $47 million, a record for his campaign and a number that was helped by his announcement of his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Despite his prodigious private fundraising, Obama may not have as much of an advantage as he would when it comes to the amount of money he will have available to spend on advertisements and get-out-the vote efforts.

McCain benefits from money contributed to the coffers of the Republican National Committee, which has been more successful at raising money than the Democratic Party.

The need to raise money privately also means Obama needs to take more time off the trail to headline events with donors. On Tuesday, Obama is attending a glitzy Beverly Hills fundraiser that will include a performance by singer-actress Barbra Streisand, a long-time Democratic activist. That event could be one of the biggest Democratic fundraisers of the election cycle.

The Obama campaign said its cash on hand at the end of August was more than $77 million and that its total number of donors is now 2.5 million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1441295320080914

red states rule

01-24-2010, 09:54 AM

See here is the problem. Corporations receive monies from the government and now they want to limit there speech, but, so do unions. Well if u give money to one and then disallow them from free speech u cannot expect the Court to allow the other to continue with lobbying. Had the administration disallowed anyone who received monies from government from contributing there would be no problem.

The fact is Republicans accept the contributions from corporations and Democrats accept those from unions. If we cut off the funding from both, there would be no legal issue.

Unfortunately, Dems try to cut off funding from corporations and Repubs try to cut it off from unions, if they would both come together and cut off both we would have much better elections!!!!

dmk

Keith Overbite had the nerve to attacks his fellow liberal buddies for not attacking the USSC decision

I do not recall Keith bashing Obama and the Dems for raising record amounts of money in 2008

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XduzVrpruz" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XduzVrpruz" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

Kathianne

01-24-2010, 09:58 AM