The Forum › Everything Else FileCabi.net Forum (2007–2008)

Obama is Right on This One

1. mousewallratSalvaged from archive24 Jan 2010, 12:23
   Obama Calls SCOTUS Ruling on Campaign Spending 'Devastating' President Obama used his weekly address to rail against Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on corporate spending in political campaigns -- calling it a “devastating” and “powerful blow” striking at democracy that he intends to fight against. “The United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence,” Obama said. “This ruling strikes at our democracy itself.” In a 5-4 decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court invalidated decades-old federal legislation restricting corporate spending in political campaigns. The president said ruling essentially “opens the floodgates” for unlimited amounts of special interest money and gives those special interest lobbyists “new leverage.” “That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time," President Obama said. "Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.” When the ruling came down, President Obama said, he instructed his administration to get to work immediately with members of Congress to developed a “forceful, bipartisan” response to the decision. “We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done,” he said. “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.” The president said that the ruling will make it more difficult to pass his key agenda items – like health care and energy legislation, because foreign entities would be allowed to affect elections and the insurance industry would have ever more power. “Teddy Roosevelt fought to limit special interest spending and influence over American political campaigns and warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending," Obama said, pledging to fight. "His message rings as true as ever today, in this age of mass communications, when the decks are too often stacked against ordinary Americans.”
2. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive24 Jan 2010, 17:31
   Well I'm glad to see you supporting the ol' Pres for once. But I'm even happier to see that Obama is railing against this campaign spending bullshit.
3. mousewallratSalvaged from archive24 Jan 2010, 18:35
   Well I'm glad to see you supporting the ol' Pres for once. But I'm even happier to see that Obama is railing against this campaign spending bullshit. Raid, please...I don't give a fuck whether a guy has an 'R' or 'D' by his name. I support the guy that's right on each issue. Then I'll excoriate him when he's wrong. If he ran his office with this sort of mien, I'd be his biggest fan. Not that it means anything...talking about Politics is like jerking off to your sister. It gives you a warm feeling, but isn't going anywhere.
4. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive25 Jan 2010, 14:21
   It sounds bad to me too, but I am still curious to see how it turns out. The problem before was that companies were already giving tons of money to campaigns, but funneling it through individuals. The Examiner recently wrote and article about it. While it sounded good on paper, there is no evidence that BCRA restricted for-profit organizations from pouring funds into election campaigns. For example, in 2008: · Goldman Sachs employees gave Obama $997,095, and $5,942,076 overall to candidates. · Morgan Stanley employees gave Obama $514,881, and $3,781,635 overall. Though officially illegal to contribute to candidates directly from corporate accounts, if Open Secrets can link individual donations to a company, so can grateful politicians. It appears that BCRA had little impact on business’s ability to buy influence via campaign contributions. With the advent of bailouts, what’s interesting is the correlation between money in and money out. Open Secrets notes: Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks, was also among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money to help it stay afloat. Morgan Stanley is one of the world’s top investment banks, offering its clients everything from stock portfolio management to credit services. Like others in the securities industry, however, it lobbied for money from the federal government in 2008 and 2009 when the industry—along with the economy—was floundering. The investment bank received billions in taxpayer money from the bailout bill. The full article can be found here. http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner… If the corporations, labor unions and organizations such as the NRA spend money to run ads, you will know who it is coming from without having to follow the paper trail. It might actually make elections more transparent.
5. mousewallratSalvaged from archive25 Jan 2010, 15:27
   The thing that frightens me is that foreign influences will increase. No company should be able to help buy the candidate they want. 'One man, one vote' is now 'Government of the Corporations, by the Corporations and for the Corporations. Not that is wasn't bad before, but they at least had to hide it.
6. Supplemental PersonaSalvaged from archive25 Jan 2010, 15:30
   Only registered voters should be allowed to donate to candidates.
7. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive25 Jan 2010, 19:25
   Raid, please...I don't give a fuck whether a guy has an 'R' or 'D' by his name. I support the guy that's right on each issue. Then I'll excoriate him when he's wrong. If he ran his office with this sort of mien, I'd be his biggest fan. Not that it means anything...talking about Politics is like jerking off to your sister. It gives you a warm feeling, but isn't going anywhere. Lol yeah but come on, virtually all of your little articles are labeled "Liberals this, Obama that, democrats this" By labeling your titles as such you give the impression that you're diametrically opposed to democrats and liberals. It sounds bad to me too, but I am still curious to see how it turns out. The problem before was that companies were already giving tons of money to campaigns, but funneling it through individuals. The Examiner recently wrote and article about it. The full article can be found here. http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner… If the corporations, labor unions and organizations such as the NRA spend money to run ads, you will know who it is coming from without having to follow the paper trail. It might actually make elections more transparent. Following the paper trail is nice because it allows us to see something that we already know is happening, however, we're legalizing something we already know to be wrong (at least as it stands). Just because we can see it doesn't make it right, it just means that we need a better way to monitor/restrict this kinda stuff. It's a lofty goal, but better than just being able to see where it comes from. The thing that frightens me is that foreign influences will increase. No company should be able to help buy the candidate they want. 'One man, one vote' is now 'Government of the Corporations, by the Corporations and for the Corporations. Not that is wasn't bad before, but they at least had to hide it. I couldn't agree more. Even if we were to say only registered voters/companies can donate to campaigns, it still wouldn't be that difficult for foreign interests to get their hands into some willing people here in the country.
8. mousewallratSalvaged from archive25 Jan 2010, 20:20
   Lol yeah but come on, virtually all of your little articles are labeled "Liberals this, Obama that, democrats this" By labeling your titles as such you give the impression that you're diametrically opposed to democrats and liberals. True, because I more agree with the Republicans...but I had nothing nice to say about Bush either. I just hate being lumped in with them like I like them. They're just the greater of two lessers.
9. Echo1Salvaged from archive25 Jan 2010, 20:24
   Lol yeah but come on, virtually all of your little articles are labeled "Liberals this, Obama that, democrats this" By labeling your titles as such you give the impression that you're diametrically opposed to democrats and liberals. thats cause theres only libs in office right now.. lewl. sept that nig from boston or whatever. dont care. politics are gay. just tell me who to shoot at.
10. NanabungaSalvaged from archive25 Jan 2010, 20:33
    dont care. politics are gay. just tell me who to shoot at. The black guy.
11. Echo1Salvaged from archive25 Jan 2010, 20:38
    catastrophic kill.
12. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive26 Jan 2010, 11:11
    I don't know if a political ad that is followed by, "this message paid for Dubai", is going to help a candidate. "This message paid for by the NRA", may benefit. I don't think that, "This message brought to you by Goldman Sachs" will. Right now, all of the money goes through a PAC and it takes a long time to figure out who donated it. I think they need to get rid of the PAC's and just have people run their OWN ads, and make people put their name on the ad they run. You have freedom of speech, but you don't get to make anonymous political statements. That's what I'd like to see.

Reply

Sign in or create an account to reply to this old topic.

Want your old post taken down? Get in touch.