The TexasFred Blog
No Holds Barred: News, Opinion and Commentary
This is The Header Then

Obama calls campaign finance ruling ‘devastating’

January 23rd, 2010 . by TexasFred

Obama calls campaign finance ruling ‘devastating’

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says he can’t imagine “anything more devastating to the public interest” than the Supreme Court’s decision to ease limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions.

He also suggested in his radio and Internet address Saturday that the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda.

In the 5-4 decision Thursday, the high court threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using their own money to produce and run campaign ads that urge the election or defeat of particular candidates by name.

“This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy,” the president said. “It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way - or to punish those who don’t.”

Full Story Here:
Obama calls campaign finance ruling ‘devastating’

This decision was rendered by the Supreme Court on Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010. You can’t say that Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of making SNAP decisions. It’s taken him 2 full days to react to the ruling by the Supreme Court.

It took him 8 days to even make noise about the Christmas Day terror attempt! But, in all fairness, he was on a much needed vacation in Hawaii and he couldn’t be interrupted. The POTUS does need his rest you know. He did however, interrupt his golf game to make an emergency run to a local hospital when one of his cohorts children suffered a skinned knee or some such. That shows the compassion of THE MAN!

And when Haiti was devastated, Obama sprang into action. He committed troops, supplies and American dollars that we just don’t have to spare or spend. 

It was his people after all, well, more or less. I don’t think Haiti is a Muslim nation, if it were we’d be doing even more than we are now, but for some reason, it seems that Barack Hussein Obama only reacts immediately to that which captures HIS fancy, not necessarily to that which endangers the lives of Americans!

Barack Hussein Obama is either the deepest, most deliberate thinker to ever inhabit to White House or he is a dullard of immense proportions. Personally, I am going with dullard, dense, very slow to react, as some in the firearms business say regarding BAD ammo, “About a 10 second FLASH to BANG delay!”

He also suggested in his radio and Internet address Saturday that the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda.

His domestic agenda? HIS domestic agenda? Would that be the domestic agenda that destroys the American economy? Or maybe it’s the agenda where we give up every right we have as a free nation and are forced into a world of socialism, communism, Marxism, or any combination of those failed agendas!

I don’t even begin to claim that I fully understand the nuance of this campaign reform mess. I know it was connected to McCain-Feingold, and I know that the SCOTUS struck it down. That is a good thing. If McCain had a hand in it, well, McCain is just another RINO, a Dem wannabe!

I also know that if Barack Hussein Obama is so all-fired up in the air over it, if he feels that there can’t be “anything more devastating to the public interest”, then this MUST be a good thing that came to pass.

“I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest,” he said. “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.”

I think what Barack Hussein Obama meant to say was, ‘now the playing field has been leveled’. That’s not a good thing for the Dems I suppose. I mean, if he “can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest,”, well, the Dems must be in a tizzy! :twisted:

The left leaning, oh hell Fred, say it like it really is, the LEFTIST media isn’t any too enthusiastic either.

WASHINGTON (AP) - It comes down to this at the Supreme Court: If you’ve got Justice Anthony Kennedy on your side, you can pretty much do what you want. Without him, you’re the author of an angry dissent.

Thursday’s decision to strike down restrictions on corporate campaign spending more than 60 years old was the third time in nine days that the court divided 5-4, with liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. The other cases involved an appeal from a death row inmate in Georgia and the prospect of broadcasting a gay marriage trial in California.

As in dozens of earlier cases, Kennedy was in the majority each time. He was the author of the campaign finance decision.

The rulings demonstrate the extent to which ideology - not fidelity to precedent or a particular interpretation of the Constitution - is the driving force on the court. SOURCE

If the MSM is in a tail spin, that’s gotta be good too, right? :P

It seems to me that anything that, Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the media are FOR is BAD for America and hurtful to the American people as a whole. One victory at a time folks, we ARE winning this nation back, one victory at a time!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Bookmark and Share
Return: Top of Home Page

26 Responses to “Obama calls campaign finance ruling ‘devastating’”

  1. comment number 1 by: Silver Fox

    Like you Fred I don’t understand the full implications of the recent ruling on McCain-Feingold and related laws. I do know that it seems to open future campaigns to more money-not funds going directly to the candidates, but perhaps ads supporting them or their programs. The Democrats and Obama don’t like this because in the past they have had little problems circumventing such laws with union dues and foreign donations. The playing field has been leveled and that’s why Obama has moved quickly to condemn the decision by SCOTUS.

    Obama’s anger is beginning to show this week, with the election and now the decision by the court. Things are not going well for him and he knows it. But he will continue to put the blame elsewhere and not on himself or his agenda. Its Bush, its us who are at fault. Us dumb,stupid, ignorant rednecks just don’t understand. When in reality its him, he does understand that we just aren’t buying what he’s selling.

  2. comment number 2 by: redlocks

    This ruling will give any corporation the same First Amendment rights of any American citizen human being. The owners of the corporation do not have to be American citizens, as long as the corporation has a presence in one of the fifty states.

    If the Communist Chinese government wants to set up a corporation in the US…which it easily can…it will be granted the same First Amendment rights that our Founding Fathers fought for the People to have. Bin Laden can stop fighting and just start a corporation and back the politicians he wants. The Iranian government can start a corporation and have First Amendment rights. Then they can build all the bombs they want.

    The EU can start a corporation and start pushing Democratic Socialism down our throat.

    It also ensures that the people with the most money have the most influence, not the people with the most votes.

  3. comment number 3 by: TexasFred

    So redlocks, can you explain WHY Obama says it’s SO bad? And why it’s going to ruin HIS agenda?

    Does Obama care about America or does he hate having competition in destroying Her?

  4. comment number 4 by: minuteman26

    Fred - Exactly. The campaign finance playing field is now on equal terms and Obama can’t handle it. Don’t you feel bad for all those marxists?

  5. comment number 5 by: TexasFred

    To redlocks: Read the rules, they are few, and I am not trying to infringe on any intelligent commenting, as long as the comment maker is intelligent.

    All 1st time comment makers must be approved by Admin before their comments will show.


    I am not constantly sitting here anxiously awaiting comments from new folks, I DO have other things to take care of and by submitting your comment again it only adds to the burden, and it won’t make it post any sooner…

  6. comment number 6 by: The BoBo

    That whole case came out because they denied Bob Novak’s movie Hillary: The Movie from being widely shown - yet - in 2004 it was okay for Michael Moore’s 9/11 movie to be shown worldwide. You’re right - this just levels the playing field and it pisses them off. If P-BO is against it - well - it must have been a good decision.

  7. comment number 7 by: The BoBo

    redlocks - can you provide an example - prior to McCain-Feingold - where any corporation put out TV ads, print ads, or movies? This law was directed primarily at the non-profit 507’s and PACs. Generally, real business corporations in this country don’t get involved in political advertising other than to provide financial support to those aforementioned. The left didn’t have a problem with the creation of by George Soros. They only started having a problem with it when conservatives started doing the same thing through funding of conservative PACs and the SwiftBoat organization in 2004.

    Your fears are unfounded and are very unlikely to happen. Besides, the Chinese corporations heavily fund the Democrats - i.e., Hillary. The Chinese and those other foreign corporations that you are so scared of always support the Democrats because they know when the Dems are in, this country is weak. Either way - what you propose will happen - won’t. The U.S. Constitution is for U.S. citizens. Foreign corporations are not protected by the U.S. Constitution and are subject to different, prohibitive laws.

  8. comment number 8 by: Don

    He isn’t a deliberative thinker and I don’t think he is a dullard. Obama behaves as if he never matured emotionally beyond puberty. Combining that with his strict far left ideology and it is a bad, bad combination.

  9. comment number 9 by: TexasFred

    He does remind you of a rebellious teen that just heard the word NO for the 1st time!

  10. comment number 10 by: Texasgal

    This is part of the explanation I heard on the TV today. At first blush I thought this would be good for Obama as the unions love Dems. However after hearing the talk on TV I can see where it would bother him. While there are still limits to the amounts individuals can contribute, now the unions and corporations will be able to use money from their general funds to produce and run their own campaign ads for the candidate of their choice. However, they cannot contribute directly to the candidate. This gives more political speech to independent groups that can spend on behalf of a certain issue or candidate.

    Individuals will still have disclosure limits and contribution limits, as will unions and corps of money donated directly to the candidate. But the main result of this decision is that it will make it much harder for the candidates or the party to control their message. It also levels the playing field for corps in what can be said. Newspapers, radio, TV etc have long been allowed to editorialize and endorse candidates while other corps, such as banks, big oil, Walmart, etc did not have the same freedom of speech.

    Now we will be hearing a lot more political rhetoric and the candidates are going to have to be on their toes trying to respond to all that will be said. Follow the money. There will be a lot more spent on campaigns in the future and a lot of favors owed by whomever gets into office.

    I for one am really enjoying Obama whine like a baby. Bout time he gets off his arrogant high horse.

  11. comment number 11 by: redlocks

    Of course much of the activity of corporations will be through PAC’s as it already is. By the way, what is a PAC or 507? These are corporations. Whether it is non-profit, tax-exempt, for profit or a coop, there are many types of corporations. Labor unions are usually corporations too.

    Corporations are merely legal constructs to do the work of human beings and to give citizens certain perks. These constructs have now been given more rights, and also giving the humans behind them more power…effectively taking it away from the People. Most of the People do not have access to corporations that are large enough to influence politicians.

    There are no laws about foreign people or countries being stock holders of corporations. Anyone can start a US corporation in any state, although admittedly I don’t know incorporation laws in every state. These corporations now have First Amendment rights, therefore extending these rights to foreign persons.

    The examples I used were extreme for a reason. They may or may not happen, that is not the point. Now, they can happen. China or any one else on earth now has legal access to the Constitutions First Amendment if they simply take the time and $100 or so to start a corporation. Whether they exercise that right is up to them.

  12. comment number 12 by: Dick Robie

    Levels the playing field with the Unions. No wonder he is angry. He has no respect for the Constitution anyway

  13. comment number 13 by: mrchuck

    I wouldn’t be surprised if just about every country in the world ALREADY has a duly constructed corporation in place within the USA.
    Why not?

  14. comment number 14 by: Silver Fox

    You can bet you ass that Obama thought this one through before he stepped forward to condemn it. If this ruling would have benefited his party it would be the greatest thing to ever come down the pike. With Obama and Chuck Schumer hollowing like stuck pigs you know the court did the right thing. Remember neither Chuck or Barack are friends to Corporate America—they are seen by those two as the enemy. So spin it anyway you wish redlocks but that doesn’t change the fact that you are on the wrong side of this one, unless you are on Obama’s side—is that it!

  15. comment number 15 by: TexasFred

    Well Silver Fox, I was wondering the same thing, is redlocks on the Obama bus?

    A bit of clarification would be nice, but I don’t know if we’ll get it… We’ll see, as long as civility is exhibited, it’s all good, but if moonbat libber rants come to pass, the AMF option is always a possibility! :twisted:

  16. comment number 16 by: HoosierArmyMom

    The one thing that I felt McCain-Feingold did, was make it so that a person without large sums of cash couldn’t think about running for office. Putting limits on how much any person or entity can give to a campaign kind of makes it so that only a wealthy person (or someone “married to an heiress” with tons of money), can run for office. That bill, in my mind didn’t represent anything close to campaign finance reform, it put the advantage squarely with the Democrats. Now Obozo is “All Mad” about it. The emotional immaturity he shows is part of “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”… not emotionally mature enough to empathize with or play well with others and everything is ALL ABOUT THEM… Thus he refers to “HIS AGENDA”!!!!

  17. comment number 17 by: Patrick Sperry

    It is,and always is about “HIS AGENDA,” and,if it bad for him, it is good for America.

  18. comment number 18 by: HoosierArmyMom

    Sounds like a kewl bumper sticker Patrick, I want one. *evil grin*

  19. comment number 19 by: cmblake6

    And since 1934 they’ve been trying to defang the Gadsden Snake:

  20. comment number 20 by: Mr Pink Eyes

    If this ruling hurts Obama’s agenda, than it has to be a good ruling.

  21. comment number 21 by: Dick Robie

    No-redlocks is merely explaining the facts of life about Corporations. Missed one point tho-PACs in Companies/Corporations are voluntary-when I contributed to a PAC at the Major Corp I worked for I designated what the money was to go for-I think that is the case for all PACs.

    I said before and will asay it again-Obama does not like this because it levels the playing field as relates to Unions.

  22. comment number 22 by: Vigilante

    If this hurts “HIS AGENDA” then I’m all for it. Him and “His” agenda has been hurting this country and he don’t give a crap about that, so, mr.
    halfbreed welcome to the “HURT”, it’s just getting started……..

  23. comment number 23 by: Bloviating Zeppelin

    1. For legal and tax purposes it was determined quite some time ago that corporations had rights similar to those of individuals in this nation.

    2. Chinese corporations are already present, at work, to build vehicle facilities in the US. You will see Chinese vehicle showrooms in the US within a year or so.

    3. One Hand Washes The Other: “Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign distanced itself Thursday from its $800,000 payment linked to the liberal ACORN organization, which is under investigation in several states where it is suspected of filing fraudulent voter registrations.

    Federal Election Commission reports show ACORN-affiliated Citizens Services Inc. got $832,598 from the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote work during the primaries. But those payments stopped in May and the Obama campaign says they should not be an election issue.”

    4. Obama backed down from an earlier pledge that lobbyists “will not work in my White House” after the media questioned its feasibility. He then said that lobbyists would not “dominate” or “run” his administration but acknowledged that they would “have a seat at the table”. Obama said he would restrict the influence of lobbyists by openly negotiating a health insurance bill with the health insurance industry “on C-SPAN”, disclosing of all meetings between his political appointees and lobbyists, barring lobbyists appointed to his administration from working on regulations or contracts directly affecting their employer for two years, and restricting appointees leaving service from lobbying for the remainder of Obama’s term of office.[5] [6]

    5. The following, according to Public Citizen/WhiteHouseForSale,[14] have been identified by the Obama campaign as bundlers who are also lobbyists who contributed to Obama for America.

    Frank M. Clark[15] is chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corporation. As an Obama bundler, Clark raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on January 26, 2007, he personally contributed $2,000 [16], Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank wrote July 4, 2007, in the Dissident Voice.[17]

    “Barack, for the second quarter in a row, has surpassed the fundraising prowess of Hillary Clinton. To be sure small online donations have propelled the young senator to the top, but so too have his connections to big industry. The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator.

    “The Illinois-based company also helped Obama’s 2004 senatorial campaign. As Ken Silverstein reported in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s, ‘[Exelon] is Obama’s fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects … the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.’”

    See Greg Sargent’s January 17, 2008, TPMElection Central “Hillary And Obama Duke It Out Over Hillary’s Yucca Mountain Ad.”[18]

    Scott Blake Harris[19] is the managing partner of the Washington, D.C., firm Harris Wiltshire and Grannis, which handles such legislative issues as Communications/Broadcasting/ Radio/TV, Science/Technology, Telecommunications, and Trade (Foreign and Domestic), as well as representing the Computing Technology Industry Association. As an Obama bundler, Harris raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on March 15, 2007, he personally contributed $2,000.[20]

    Allan J. Katz[21] is a shareholder and chairman of the Policy Practice Group at Akerman Senterfitt in Tallahassee, Florida. Katz is a Member of the Florida Democratic Committee and Democratic National Committee, and Tallahassee City Commissioner. As an Obama bundler, Katz raised $200,000+ with Marilyn Katz of MK Communications (who personally contributed $1,000 to Obama for America[22] on January 21, 2007).

    Robert S. Litt[23] is a partner at the Washington, D.C. firm Arnold & Porter, a regulatory and public affairs firm which represents multiple clients in a variety of industries. As an Obama bundler, Litt raised unknown amount of money. FEC records show that Litt personally contributed $2,300[24] on February 26, 2007 and $2,300[25] on May 2, 2007.

    Thomas J. Perrilli[26] is managing partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Jenner and Block, a Chicago general practice law firm, which includes among its clients the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and Time Warner Inc. As an Obama bundler, Perrelli raised $200,000+. FEC records show that Perrelli personally contributed $2,100 on January 16, 2007, and $200 on March 5, 2007;[27] and $2,300 on March 21, 2007.[28]

    Thomas A. Reed[29] is Of Counsel at Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP (K&L Gates), which represents multiple industries and multiple clients. As an Obama bundler, Reed raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on March 20, 2007, Reed personally contributed $2,300.[30]

    Paul N. Roth[31] is a partner at the New York firm Schulte Roth & Zabel, which represents financial institutions, investments, securities, including Cerberus Capital Partners. As an Obama bundler, Roth raised at least $50,000. FEC records show that on March 20, 2007, Roth personally contributed $2,300.[32]

    Alan D. Solomont of Solomont Bailis Ventures[33] in Massachusetts represents Health Services/HMOs. As an Obama bundler, Solomont raised $200,000+. FEC records show that Solomont personally contributed $2,100 on January 26, 2007;[34] $2,500 on March 30, 2007;[35] (Rebecca Solomont at the same address made two $2,300 contributions on the same day); and $2,300 on March 30, 2007[36]

    Tom E. Wheeler[37] is managing director of Core Capital Partners, a private equity fund in Washington, D.C. As an Obama bundler, Wheeler raised $100,000+. FEC records show that Wheeler personally contributed $2,100 on January 16, 2007;[38] $2,500 on May 2, 2007;[39] and an additional $2,300 on May 2, 2007.[40] (Note: another $2,300 was added then removed also on May 2, 2007.)

    6. ALL of those people represent CORPORATE interests, and Mr Obama thusly dipped his toe AND entire FACE into the Corporate Trough.

    7. Mr Obama DISAGREES with it being done OPENLY.


  24. comment number 24 by: Vigilante

    Whoaaaaaa, BZ!!

    Be danged if you didn’t do some heavy researching on the messiah’s
    ass kissin. I have to applaud you sir on a job well done.

  25. comment number 25 by: W W Woodward

    Lobbyists and/or corporations (this apparently includes speakers of the house and Senate majority leaders) may offer any benefit and attempt to contribute any amount they wish, it’s up to the personal ethics of the individual politician to either accept or reject the offer.

    Recently, thanks to the health care brew-up, we have been privileged to determine the whore status of several senators and representatives, and also to establish their price.

    The last thing the O’Bobble head wants is a level playing field.


  26. comment number 26 by: ng4779

    Mr. Constitutional Lawyer NEVER had a problem accepting monies from foreign countries that handed the office keys to him, now did he?

You must be logged in to post a comment.