Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House hopes to blunt Supreme Court's decision
Politico ^ | 1/25/10 | KENNETH P. VOGEL

Posted on 01/25/2010 4:58:47 PM PST by opentalk

President Barack Obama, criticized by campaign finance reform advocates for not living up to his repeated pledges to reduce the role of special interests in elections, plans an aggressive push-back to last week’s Supreme Court decision overturning restrictions on political spending by corporations, unions and other organizations.

POLITICO has learned that the White House is in talks with congressional offices about efforts to require shareholders to vote before a corporation could spend money in elections, require companies that pay for ads supporting or opposing candidates to more clearly identify themselves in the ads, restrict the ability of companies with big government contracts to air such ads and tighten rules prohibiting outside groups from coordinating their ads with candidates.

The 5-4 court ruling “established the legal landscape for campaign finance reform — and we are responding to it with urgency,” said an administration official involved in formulating the coming White House campaign-finance push.

Anticipating the court’s decision in the case brought against the Federal Election Commission by the conservative nonprofit group Citizens United, the White House had been preparing for months for the push, meeting behind the scenes with members of Congress and advocacy groups supportive of stricter campaign finance rules. After the ruling came down Thursday, Obama vowed to work with members of Congress from both parties “to develop a forceful response to this decision.”

Obama also used his weekly address over the weekend to criticize the ruling and pledged again to work with Congress to roll it back, saying, “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.”

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: 54courtruling; campaignmoney; elections; fec; freespeech; justiceroberts; obama; progressives; scotus; supremecourt

1 posted on 01/25/2010 4:58:48 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Sorry ‘O’ SCOTUS ruled on Constitutionality which is their job; You Lose!


2 posted on 01/25/2010 5:00:53 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Congress shall make no law... 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.

Go Chief Justice Roberts!!

3 posted on 01/25/2010 5:01:00 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Join the TEA Party Rebellion!! May God and TEA save the Republic!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Yet once again, Obama thinks he has the power to control privately owned, taxpaying corporations.


4 posted on 01/25/2010 5:02:07 PM PST by adamjeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adamjeeps
You are right. Barry doesn’t like the constitution it keeps getting in his way.
5 posted on 01/25/2010 5:07:52 PM PST by oldenuff2no (I'm a VET and damn proud of it!!! I did not fight for a socialist America!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

The problem Bambi and his minions face is: how to ALLOW “media corporations” to continue to shill for him, while somehow restricting OTHER corporations.

Very, very difficult to do.

Bambi and the ‘Rats are screwed by free speech, and they know it.


6 posted on 01/25/2010 5:08:46 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Eat more spinach! Make Green Jobs for America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

This is essentially nibbling around the edges. They can’t do more, because the ruling is clear.

Also, some of it can come back to bite the Democrats. For example, if you require a shareholder vote before airing adds about a candidate, you can justify letting union members get the same vote before their union (in which they are the shareholders) supports a candidate. That could lead to some unpleasant surprises for Democrat candidates...


7 posted on 01/25/2010 5:09:22 PM PST by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

“Don’t make me go all Andy Jackson on your ass.”


8 posted on 01/25/2010 5:12:03 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (I AM JIM THOMPSON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

What part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE does he not get?!?


9 posted on 01/25/2010 5:12:32 PM PST by Dubya-M-Dees (Little HOPE... No CHANGE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adamjeeps

Let’s see...would this be the same Obama who promised to publicly finance his campaign and then backed off to collect loads of private financing ? I have no words for this POS.


10 posted on 01/25/2010 5:13:28 PM PST by chiller ( ALMOST SPEECHLESS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

new title = White House hopes to blunt Free Speach


11 posted on 01/25/2010 5:13:41 PM PST by mreerm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

restrict the ability of companies with big government contracts to air such ads

This might possibly be the only constitutional restriction
in his wish list and at that it would require prior consent.

Warning, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I have
read the constitution.


12 posted on 01/25/2010 5:13:48 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-Dees

This must be a really BIG ruling for free speech, the way he has reacted.


13 posted on 01/25/2010 5:16:46 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Mr. Obama, meet my friend, Phil E. Buster.


14 posted on 01/25/2010 5:20:29 PM PST by TonyInOhio ( Who is Ellie Light?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Unions don’t “vote” on handing over part of their union dues to the candidate of the union boss’s choice. Those funds should be made “voluntary.”


15 posted on 01/25/2010 6:06:06 PM PST by ThePatriotsFlag (http://www.thepatriotsflag.com - The Patriot's Flag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThePatriotsFlag

Unions don’t “vote” on handing over part of their union dues to the candidate of the union boss’s choice. Those funds should be made “voluntary.”

Amen to that from a union member.


16 posted on 01/25/2010 6:34:45 PM PST by ez ("Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is..." - Milton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

They think they rollback a SCOTUS decision that applies strict scrutiny, these are the smartest people in the room? I guess to quote Sun Tzu, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”. Plus SCOTUS gets to decide Gura vs Chicago this session too, imagine what could have if Heller is majorly reaffirmed and get strict scrutiny too.


17 posted on 01/25/2010 7:16:08 PM PST by ClayinVA ("Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
"...require shareholders to vote before a corporation could spend money in elections.."

Yeah sure! Right after they do the same thing for the unions!

18 posted on 01/25/2010 8:48:06 PM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
Mr. Obama, meet my friend, Phil E. Buster.

As you know, there are many enemies of freedom in the Gop too.

19 posted on 01/25/2010 11:30:52 PM PST by free1977free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

bowow is a complete asshole.....totally unfit to rule...


20 posted on 01/26/2010 3:48:19 AM PST by The Wizard (I support Madam President, the only President in America today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson