PDA

View Full Version : "Obama Blasts Supreme Court Decision"



megimoo
01-21-2010, 02:33 PM
President Obama came out swinging today against the Supreme Court's ruling in a major campaign finance case. In a statement issued by the White House, Obama said the decision "has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics." He added that his administration will work with Congress to soften the impact of the decision. Here's his full statement:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue.

We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

"Hey birdbrain didn't those same rules allow Soros and company to import millions of Foreign dollars to get your sorry African/Arab Ass elected ?"


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77343-obama-blasts-court-decision

Nubs
01-21-2010, 03:11 PM
Here is the next logical avenue to progress their agenda. An imminent retirement will allow them to get a predictible 5-4 lib court. All the more reason to try to get the Senate back in 10 months.

AmPat
01-21-2010, 06:35 PM
I thought they'd embrace this. Afterall, they have the special interests, unions, media moguls, and King Soros. What more could they want?:cool:

stsinner
01-21-2010, 06:43 PM
I think the reason Obama and the Libs don't like this decision is that all their sheanigans and shady actions will be broadcast constantly during the campaigns.

Eagle
01-21-2010, 06:48 PM
I think the reason Obama and the Libs don't like this decision is that all their sheanigans and shady actions will be broadcast constantly during the campaigns.

Agree.

lacarnut
01-21-2010, 06:53 PM
Oh, the horrors. Lifting the restrictions on Corporations campaign contributions. I guess the Jackass-in-Chief does not have a problem with Trial Lawyers and Unions having a free reign on their contributions. This seems like a fair decision to me and screw McCain & Feingold.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 07:19 PM
I thought they'd embrace this. Afterall, they have the special interests, unions, media moguls, and King Soros. What more could they want?:cool:

You thought that? So why do you think they are so upset about it?

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 07:20 PM
I think the reason Obama and the Libs don't like this decision is that all their sheanigans and shady actions will be broadcast constantly during the campaigns.

Please elaborate on your logic on how this explains the differing reactions from Republicans and Democrats. I

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 07:22 PM
Oh, the horrors. Lifting the restrictions on Corporations campaign contributions. I guess the Jackass-in-Chief does not have a problem with Trial Lawyers and Unions having a free reign on their contributions. This seems like a fair decision to me and screw McCain & Feingold.

How can any person who is not a corporation think this or repealing mccain feingold would be a good idea?

I genuinely want to know how you believe this.

coach
01-21-2010, 07:46 PM
How can any person who is not a corporation think this or repealing mccain feingold would be a good idea?

I genuinely want to know how you believe this.


Its unconstitutional.

What more do you need to know ?

lacarnut
01-21-2010, 08:00 PM
How can any person who is not a corporation think this or repealing mccain feingold would be a good idea?

I genuinely want to know how you believe this.

You mean you are OK with the union giving Coakley 1 million dollars for her campaign and Bill Clinton getting millions from the commie Chinese. However, the big bad Corporations are hamstrung on how much they can give. This is a victory for free speech and anyone with a brain knows it.

FYI, if the Health Care Bill somehow gets passed, it will be struck down by the SC. This is not a socialistic country. Liberals are trying to make it one but the people have spoken. We do not want this stupid crap.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 08:23 PM
Its unconstitutional.

What more do you need to know ?

How is it unconstitutional?

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 08:26 PM
You mean you are OK with the union giving Coakley 1 million dollars for her campaign and Bill Clinton getting millions from the commie Chinese. However, the big bad Corporations are hamstrung on how much they can give. This is a victory for free speech and anyone with a brain knows it.

No I'm not ok with democrats getting huge campaign donations from interest groups. I think all campaigns should be limited to public financing boundaries.

They're running for office not selling sneakers.


FYI, if the Health Care Bill somehow gets passed, it will be struck down by the SC. This is not a socialistic country. Liberals are trying to make it one but the people have spoken. We do not want this stupid crap.

hahah you really think this?

I too hate the idea of this current health care bill (senate version) passing, but for the opposite reason you do. I'd rather no bill pass than this bill.

Lager
01-21-2010, 08:30 PM
Because it outlawed the type of speech that our founders thought to protect above all others: political speech.
If you want to air your opinions of an issue or candidate on the networks where the most people will view them, it costs large amounts of money.
Newspapers enjoyed an unfair advantage because they were not affected by the restrictions and could editorialize or publish their opinions with very little limitations.

Lager
01-21-2010, 08:32 PM
No I'm not ok with democrats getting huge campaign donations from interest groups.




There's nothing wrong with receiving money from interest groups, as long as the money doesn't influence how one votes on an issue.

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 08:34 PM
Newspapers enjoyed an unfair advantage because they were not affected by the restrictions and could editorialize or publish their opinions with very little limitations.
And because of their abuse of this unfair privilege many of them have pissed off the American people so bad that they are being driven out of business. Good riddance!

stsinner
01-21-2010, 08:37 PM
How is it unconstitutional?

Dumbass!

1st Amendment.. 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.......


McCain-Feingold did exactly that!! It told people when and how much they could speak, and that's unconstitutional. Period!

coach
01-21-2010, 08:38 PM
How is it unconstitutional?


See the 1st amendment.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#exp). Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791. Note (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am1)
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 (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances.




guess I should have scrolled down fiirst

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 08:41 PM
Unfortunately WeeWee is not alone! The schools are churning out masses of kids just like him, completely ignorant of the constitution and they will soon be voting and taking jobs with authority!

coach
01-21-2010, 08:47 PM
Unfortunately WeeWee is not alone! The schools are churning out masses of kids just like him, completely ignorant of the constitution and they will soon be voting and taking jobs with authority!


yes, but most grow up.

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 08:50 PM
yes, but most grow up.

All of them need to join here for awhile, but I wish they would do more listening!

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 08:51 PM
I fundamentally disagree that spending money is a form of protected speech, regardless of what the supreme court decided.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 08:52 PM
Unfortunately WeeWee is not alone! The schools are churning out masses of kids just like him, completely ignorant of the constitution and they will soon be voting and taking jobs with authority!

Defensive? ;)

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 08:53 PM
I fundamentally disagree that spending money is a form of protected speech, regardless of what the supreme court decided.

You are paying someone to state your opinion! How is that not free speech?

PoliCon
01-21-2010, 08:53 PM
I thought they'd embrace this. Afterall, they have the special interests, unions, media moguls, and King Soros. What more could they want?:cool:

Ah - but this will allow special interests they don't control to have a voice. It's a free speech issue. The government is not allowed to abridge free speech.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 08:54 PM
I'm not gonna post childish passive aggressive insults because you guys disagree with me. I'm here to discuss, not engage in internet masculinity contests.

stsinner
01-21-2010, 08:54 PM
I fundamentally disagree that spending money is a form of protected speech, regardless of what the supreme court decided.

Dumbass!!

It costs money to have your voice heard! Deal with it! You can have all the free speech you can afford, just like justice.. In this country, if you work hard and earn a living, you can afford a good lawyer, and you can afford to get your message out... People own those TV and radio stations, and they paid good money for them! Their air time is valuable, so if you can afford it, you can say all you want.. You have no right to their property, which is their air-time.. That's the free-market capitalist system at its best and why you hate it...

PoliCon
01-21-2010, 08:55 PM
I fundamentally disagree that spending money is a form of protected speech, regardless of what the supreme court decided.

typical leftist. SCOTUS is infallible when you like their decisions *cough*roe-v-wade*cough* - but God forbid they make one you don't like . . . .:rolleyes:

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 08:55 PM
Defensive? ;)

Have you ever actually read the constitution or any of the writings from our founding fathers?

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 08:59 PM
I'm not gonna post childish passive aggressive insults because you guys disagree with me. I'm here to discuss, not engage in internet masculinity contests.

Well good for you but you have yet to post anything with any subsistence, a home schooled fourth grader knows more about our government then you do!

Lager
01-21-2010, 08:59 PM
I fundamentally disagree that spending money is a form of protected speech, regardless of what the supreme court decided.

Do you like Michael Moore's "documentaries"?
Moore can put tons of his own money, backed up by any number of elitist Hollywood liberals who are happy to bask in his substantial shadow, and make a propaganda film taking liberty and artistic license with the truth, and release that film as close to an election as he desires. Why should other special interests not have the right to put forth their opinions as well? Simply because you might disagree with their views, and not Moore's?

coach
01-21-2010, 08:59 PM
I fundamentally disagree that spending money is a form of protected speech, regardless of what the supreme court decided.


I agree but thats the the way it is.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 09:02 PM
It costs money to have your voice heard! Deal with it! You can have all the free speech you can afford, just like justice.. In this country, if you work hard and earn a living, you can afford a good lawyer, and you can afford to get your message out... People own those TV and radio stations, and they paid good money for them! Their air time is valuable, so if you can afford it, you can say all you want.. You have no right to their property, which is their air-time.. That's the free-market capitalist system at its best and why you hate it...

At it's best? You would be perfectly happy with one candidate sponsored by AIG and the other sponsored by Bank of America?

That is what you consider "the best of capitalism"?

I'm just curious as to how you are viewing the reality of our political system.

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 09:05 PM
This site is loaded with free books in mp3 format, start listening WeeWee and of couse anyone else that is interested. If your a good reader they can always use them too.
http://www.ejunto.com/franklin.html

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 09:05 PM
Do you like Michael Moore's "documentaries"?
Moore can put tons of his own money, backed up by any number of elitist Hollywood liberals who are happy to bask in his substantial shadow, and make a propaganda film taking liberty and artistic license with the truth, and release that film as close to an election as he desires. Why should other special interests not have the right to put forth their opinions as well? Simply because you might disagree with their views, and not Moore's?

I believe that Michael Moore should be limited just as much as everyone else in how much they can finance a campaign.

Even more so, I think all candidates should use be required to public finance funds.

If you believe that unregulated private campaign financing doesn't completely undermine the democratic process then you are more naive than a College Republican

Lager
01-21-2010, 09:05 PM
So what if AIG gives money to a candidate they agree with. Exxon Mobile could give Al Gore millions of dollars, but do you believe they would really be able to change his opinion on the issue of global warming? No, because it tends to only be worthwhile to give to a candidate who's views you have in common.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 09:08 PM
This site is loaded with free books in mp3 format, start listening WeeWee and of couse anyone else that is interested. If your a good reader they can always use them too.
http://www.ejunto.com/franklin.html

How about you just tell me your beliefs and use arguments to support them rather than passive-aggressively implying that I need to read?

Let's not play the "who reads more" game, can we? Use your brain, show me what you know, tell me what you really believe and why you believe it, and read my arguments.

PoliCon
01-21-2010, 09:08 PM
At it's best? You would be perfectly happy with one candidate sponsored by AIG and the other sponsored by Bank of America?

That is what you consider "the best of capitalism"?

I'm just curious as to how you are viewing the reality of our political system.

WTF!? Did you even bother to pay attention to the ruling?? Soft money is still regulated. Contributions are still regulated. What the SCOTUS ruled is that the congress cannot CENSOR speech. If AIG wants to make an add expressing their POV and BOA wants to do the same they can. Jackass.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 09:10 PM
So what if AIG gives money to a candidate they agree with. Exxon Mobile could give Al Gore millions of dollars, but do you believe they would really be able to change his opinion on the issue of global warming? No, because it tends to only be worthwhile to give to a candidate who's views you have in common.

I fully believe that 98% of Democrats, if allowed unlimited funding from Big Energy, would vote any way the company wanted.

Lager
01-21-2010, 09:13 PM
I fully believe that 98% of Democrats, if allowed unlimited funding from Big Energy, would vote any way the company wanted.

Well, then it appears you guys are electing the wrong kind of democrats. Anyway, as was stated earlier, unlimited funding is not suddenly allowed by the ruling.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 09:15 PM
WTF!? Did you even bother to pay attention to the ruling?? Soft money is still regulated.

Yes, but much less so. Also, I'm looking to examine the beliefs of the people here. If you believe that spending money is protected free speech, then why would ANY restriction be allowed?


Contributions are still regulated. What the SCOTUS ruled is that the congress cannot CENSOR speech.

Presupposing that spending money is free speech, which i disagree with. Also, free speech is a right of an individual, with that individual's own money. This ruling said corporations can dip into it's corporate funds (which is not the money of any individual).

megimoo
01-21-2010, 09:15 PM
I thought they'd embrace this. Afterall, they have the special interests, unions, media moguls, and King Soros. What more could they want?:cool:
The Scary Truth About The McCain-Feingold Bill

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002)

Just recently, the US Senate passed the McCain-Feingold bill. Senator Mitch McConnell did all he could to prevent his colleagues from passing this anti-First Amendment Bill.

The Senate was probably inspired by the media's hype and the general misconception concerning campaign financing. But what many don't know is how deceptive the bill really is and how it wipes out our free speech and free expression. It is true, we need campaign reform, but not at the price of removing the First Amendment Rights.

You say, What's wrong with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform?

If this bill passes the House of Representative and is signed by the President it would crippled groups, such as, the National Rifle Ass.
Unions and every Christian political organization in America:
Like, Focus on the Family,
Christian Coalition,
National Right to Life and other pro-family organization.

They would not be able to buy ads on radio, television or in newspapers 60-90 days before the election; ads to warn the public about where the candidate stands on issues.

Sixty to ninety days before the election is the very time when most Americans start paying attention to the election ads. If this bill became law, the only side the public would hear is what the candidates tell them and the media's spin on the candidates views, which is always tilted in favor of the liberal politician.

The media is totally exempt from the restrictions that McCain-Feingold bill would have on other groups. This of course would make them even more powerful in leading the public down the liberal primrose path.

The bottom line is that pro-family groups would no longer be allowed to educate the public on how the office holder or candidates votes on pro-life or pro-family issues. The Christian Coalition non-partisan voter guides, scorecards and personal involvement would be at serious risk.

All voices would be squelch but the media and the candidate. That of course, is "censorship" and that is why the media and the rich and powerful are so favorable to the McCain-Feingold bill. This bill is a major assault on the First Amendment. Senator Mitch McConnell says the "McCain-Feingold measure would undermine political parties, silence government critics and unconstitutionally restrict free speech."

Both the Democrat and the Republican parties would be weakened if this legislation should become law. Jerry Falwell says, "The McCain-Feingold bill (S. 27) could conceivably shut out the pro- life and pro-family movements from the political process and could literally cause newspapers like my 'National Liberty Journal' and this 'Falwell Confidential' newsletter to be silenced regarding elections and crucial political legislation.

The bill could prevent the Christian Coalition from distributing election voter guides and could prohibit groups like the National Right to Life Committee from impacting votes on partial-birth abortion and other pertinent pro-life legislation."

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" For many, the McCain-Feingold bill removes this First Amendment right.

Just who are the losers? It is the average citizen who wants to be a part of others to bring attention to an issue by pooling their funds and effort. This bill would muzzle those of us who are doing just that. But to no ones' surprise, the rich and powerful, the incumbent office holders and the powerful liberal media are exempt from the restrictions of this bill.

This bill restricts freedom of speech so badly that the ACLU is fighting on the same side as pro-family groups. That is a "believe it or not" because normally the ACLU is against everything the Bible believing Christians are for. But their free speech could also be restricted under the McCain-Feingold bill.

Many are saying if this bill became law it would surely wind up at the Supreme Court, which would very likely throw out much of it but still leaving it destroying a large portion of free speech and free expression. This bill has all the ingredients to be the greatest attack ever to silence the Christian voice in the political arena.

I believe this battle with McCain-Feingold is not just one party against another party or liberals against conservatives, but it is a spiritual struggle with spiritual forces fighting spiritual forces and it requires not just political warfare but spiritual warfare.

http://users.mikrotec.com/~dcgay/mccain.htm

PoliCon
01-21-2010, 09:25 PM
Yes, but much less so. Also, I'm looking to examine the beliefs of the people here. If you believe that spending money is protected free speech, then why would ANY restriction be allowed?



Presupposing that spending money is free speech, which i disagree with. Also, free speech is a right of an individual, with that individual's own money. This ruling said corporations can dip into it's corporate funds (which is not the money of any individual).

I don't think there should be a limit. Record all contributions - large and small and make them public record. Let people make up their own minds with full knowledge.

And soft money is still tightly controlled.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 09:27 PM
I don't think there should be a limit. Record all contributions - large and small and make them public record. Let people make up their own minds with full knowledge.

You're asking to have your cake and eat it to.

If a corporation can have unlimited financial influence on a lawmaker, why do you believe that would lead to laws (being passed and not being overturned) that may negatively affect the 'sponsor'?

:confused:

PoliCon
01-21-2010, 09:46 PM
You're asking to have your cake and eat it to.

If a corporation can have unlimited financial influence on a lawmaker, why do you believe that would lead to laws (being passed and not being overturned) that may negatively affect the 'sponsor'?

:confused: You're assuming that money is all it takes to get someone elected. You forget that your boy Barry outspent McCain 3 to 1 and barely beat in an election that was Obama's to lose.

lacarnut
01-21-2010, 10:20 PM
You're asking to have your cake and eat it to.

If a corporation can have unlimited financial influence on a lawmaker, why do you believe that would lead to laws (being passed and not being overturned) that may negatively affect the 'sponsor'?

:confused:

Are you tone deaf?? What about limitations on Trial Lawyers and Unions? They have unlimited financial influence on lawmakers also. This new ruling only levels the playing field that Corporations can donate in equal proportion to other entities. Capiche.

Lager
01-21-2010, 10:51 PM
You're asking to have your cake and eat it to.

If a corporation can have unlimited financial influence on a lawmaker, why do you believe that would lead to laws (being passed and not being overturned) that may negatively affect the 'sponsor'?

:confused:


Two significant prohibitions on corporations were left standing. Corporations, and presumably unions, cannot give money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates. These "contribution" restrictions were not challenged in the case decided today. And secondly, the court affirmed current federal rules which require the sponsors of political ads to disclose who paid for them.


Where are you, and the du, finding "unlimited financial influence" in the ruling?

AmPat
01-21-2010, 11:06 PM
I believe that Michael Moore should be limited just as much as everyone else in how much they can finance a campaign.

Even more so, I think all candidates should use be required to public finance funds.

If you believe that unregulated private campaign financing doesn't completely undermine the democratic process then you are more naive than a College Republican

We've seen this from King Soros, king of all DIMWITocRATS and all the Unions who spend millions to force their Socialist utopia on us. As for the slam on College Republicans, they are as a group extremely well versed on politics. Naive? Not nearly as naive as Colege DUmboRATs. See how easy that is?:rolleyes:

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 11:07 PM
How about you just tell me your beliefs and use arguments to support them rather than passive-aggressively implying that I need to read?

Let's not play the "who reads more" game, can we? Use your brain, show me what you know, tell me what you really believe and why you believe it, and read my arguments.
Read it again and this time without your bong! Your gibberish annoys me kid!

stsinner
01-22-2010, 07:10 PM
At it's best? You would be perfectly happy with one candidate sponsored by AIG and the other sponsored by Bank of America?

That is what you consider "the best of capitalism"?

I'm just curious as to how you are viewing the reality of our political system.

why not those sponsors? Who but a buffoon votes on someone based on who their sponsors are? Sure, some will do it, but there will always be dullards among us, and we're just stuck with that..

The only bad thing about the overturning of McCain-Feingold is if a candidate's position is articulated by a company or union and not by themselves.. One thing is for certain-we will see and hear many more ads created and purchased by entities than by the candidates in the upcoming elections. That may sound like it's not ideal, but you should appreciate that it is free speech and validated and guaranteed by the First Amendment, whether you like it or not.

Rockntractor
01-22-2010, 07:13 PM
It is also going to be much much harder for obama to shut up talk radio after this decision!