Posted on 04/21/2011 3:51:30 AM PDT by Shane
From the man who said he would bring a gun to a knife fight, the latest ploy to cut his opponents off at their knees. This one is not based on arguments or facts, but on sheer abuse of the powers he has as President.
Kenneth Vogel writes in Politico that President Obama is "considering a number of measures to compel disclosure of the kind of anonymous campaign contributions that helped finance millions of dollars of attack ads against Democrats during the 2010 elections."
These measures appear broad in scope:
The White House last week began circulating a draft executive order that would require companies seeking government contracts to disclose contributions -- including those that otherwise would have been secret -- to groups that air political ads attacking or supporting candidates.
The proposed order follows several actions by regulatory agencies that have a similar intent of making corporate and individual donations more transparent.
Last month the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a decree that could result in shareholders having more say in corporate election spending. Democratic appointees to the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission are pushing measures that could make public currently anonymous contributions to outside groups.
Administration critics, including the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are seizing on the White House's draft executive order, in particular, as evidence of an attempt to use executive power to punish or silence political adversaries, while rewarding supporters.
Calling the draft executive order "an affront to the separation of powers ... (and) to free speech," chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff said it "lays the groundwork for a political litmus test for companies that wish to do business with the federal government" and is "less about disclosure than intimidation."
One White House ally, Craig Holman, applauds these plans since the 2010 election brought too many Republicans into Congress to hold out hope that these "reforms" could happen through legislation. So President Obama intends to use brute force to take these measures that would chill free speech and the campaign efforts of his critics. Apparently, a great deal can be achieved administratively through a regulatory approach and by executive order. A draft of the executive order requires disclosures of contributions made by companies' executives and board members to support candidates and third-party groups (such as the very effective American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity groups).
Tellingly, the draft order would not apply to Democratic-allied groups that receive grants from the federal government (such as Planned Parenthood) or to unions, which bankroll so many Democratic campaigns and which have trumpeted that their spending power helped elect Barack Obama and makes them the king of the (Capitol) hill. Unions are among the biggest campaign spenders in America and they give their money to Democrats. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees).
Similar efforts to compel disclosure are being made through the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FCC and through the Federal Election Commission.
While the nation reels from a faltering economy with the lowest labor force participation rate in decades, with a deficit and debt crisis that may merit a S & P downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, with a geopolitical earthquake in the Middle East, Barack Obama finds time to figure out ways to hurt his political opponents (or his "enemies" as he would characterize them).
Public disclosure of campaign contributions can lead to boycotts of companies whose executives give to political campaigns (as happened when Target came under fire for its campaign contributions, when boycotts targeted campaign contributors to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker; similar efforts to punish people for their political views litter the political landscape).
Barack Obama wants to chill political speech to further his chances to win reelection. He made clear his views towards the law as decided by the Supreme Court when he crassly lambasted them last year during the State of the Union address for supporting the First Amendment in their Citizens United decision (a law he basically wants to undercut by using the powers of the Presidency in a particularly underhanded way).
Barack Obama , when he ran his campaign for state senator, had his opponents thrown off the ballots by challenging the signatures on their petitions to run. He cleared the ballot of all opponents.
He does not play fair -- and never has. That is his modus operandi. He learned everything he needed to know about politics in Cook County and he has brought its mores to Washington.
Change, yes, change; but in a wrong direction and in a way that the media would scorn had a Republican tried to derail opposition by these tactics.
Sponsored Link: “Underground” Video Gets 10 Million Views. A disturbing video has become an Internet sensation. It may forever change the way you think about our country. Watch the full video, free of charge, here...
I actually want Palin to be president, but the GOP will never let a true conservative reformer such as her be the front runner. She’s too “extreme” for what the republicrat party sees as their base.
Stop making lame, insincere excuses. Ether admit that you don't want Palin (and that's what you're really trying to say...), or, if you support her, get on board, because with or without you, this train is headed straight for D.C... non-stop express.
As President-in-waiting Palin says, "Either buck up, or stay in the truck!"
N'kay?
;-\
I want what Palin preaches to be our country’s leader in 2012. You cannot guarantee me that she will legislate like she runs. She is a human politician. Yes, I have studied her track record as Governor and I am duly impressed.
The problems in this country are too deeply rooted to be fixed by one election. What I am saying is that if you look at the historical patterns of back forth Lib/Dem Con/Pub in the presidential elections, the one after Palin will probably be the Anti-Christ. Follow this: Carter, Clinton, Obama, ___?
Palin has made promises while campaigning 5 times in her life. In every instance, once elected, she did precisely what she promised she would do.
Your "opinion" doesn't change a thing: neither her record, nor the facts. Go screw, insurrectionist deceiver. Innocently suggesting that God's own daughter has become as Satan-infected as you is to be expected, transparent and vile. You're a sink-hole.
We're done here, you and me. Buh-bye.
:-\
I expect such venom from Marxist libtards, but it’s not becoming a conservative. Especially one that invokes God’s name during such hate-filled rebuke.
If you are a typical Palin supporter, maybe she’s not right to lead this land.
I think she is, but if you really want her to win, please shut your spiritually retarded mouth.
Take you hate to DU where it belongs, fool.
She may have a chance without morons like you singing her praises.
Thank you for this piece of information. These people make a mockery of our laws. Why 50% of our population cannot see this man for what he is remains a mystery to me.
If that happens, I hope you and your Mom have your guns and ammo ready. Everyone will have to fight for their lives and for America.
Alinsky's Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.
Take me hate? Nice try... talk much?
LMAO!!!
8^D
You said you were done, yet you respond again. Does Palin go back on her word like you? I made a typo.
At least I’m not stupid enough to think that the Holy Spirit impregnated Palin’s virgin mother and created “God’s own Daughter”.
People like you make the argument for the left that right are religious fanatics.
Are you going to stick to your original plan, or respond again and show what an astute politician (liar) you really are? Your credibility is already gone on this forum, anyway.
Wow! You really told me, huh? ESAD, phlegm-snack.
LMAO!!!
Seriously, for a borderline illiterate, you really get around. < giggling >
8^D
SCOTUS has already pre-empted this EO.
It is in violation of the decision that invalidated McSwine-Foolsegold.
>> “What I am saying is that if you look at the historical patterns of back forth Lib/Dem Con/Pub in the presidential elections, the one after Palin will probably be the Anti-Christ.” <<
.
Are you saying that the pope is going to be elected president? Or do you mean some other antichrist? :o)
The difference between you and I is that I am an adult that is not laughing at your juvenile behavior.
Just like leftists, you lack the intelligence to debate issues and fall back on silly personal attacks.
I can not laugh at you because you are so pathetic and childish that I truly feel sorry for you.
I can downshift to your level, though:
Only someone born with an embarrassingly small member would have to overcompensate by using a screen name “Gargantua”.
Please grow up or take your silliness to another forum geared towards children.
Oh, and just FYI, it's "The difference between you and "me", not "I." Idiots who don't know grammer often make that mistake when trying to sound intelligent, never knowing how appallingly ignorant it sounds to someone who knows better.
And the hits just keep on coming.
8^D
It’s grammar not grammer.
-PJ
Please stop wasting bandwidth and find a role model to do the job your worthless, absent father failed to.
At least you have stopped giggling like a girl.
Now, I am finished with you.
Explains alot.
Buh-bye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.