« | »

Obama Calls For Limits On Free Speech

From those erstwhile champions of free speech at Reuters:

Obama calls for limits on corporate campaign money

By Jeff Mason Jeff Mason Sat May 1, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Warning of a potential "corporate takeover of our elections," President Barack Obama increased pressure on Congress on Saturday to pass reforms to limit companies’ ability to influence political campaigns.

Obama’s remarks, made in his weekly radio and Internet address, came after Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation on Thursday to blunt the impact of a January U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations, unions and other groups to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns.

Obama, who vehemently opposed the Supreme Court ruling and drew criticism for lambasting it in the presence of the court justices at his State of the Union address earlier this year, endorsed the new Democratic legislation and used strong language to encourage lawmakers to turn it into law.

"What we are facing is no less than a potential corporate takeover of our elections. And what is at stake is no less than the integrity of our democracy," he said.

The measures would require corporate, union and advocacy group leaders to disclose their names in TV ads. It would ban election spending by government contractors, companies with more than 20 percent foreign ownership and bank bailout recipients.

"Under the bill Congress will consider, we’ll make sure that foreign corporations and foreign nationals are restricted from spending money to influence American elections, just as they were in the past — even through U.S. subsidiaries," Obama said in the address.

This from a man whose Presidential campaign received untold donations (bundled in small sums) from foreign countries.

In its January decision, the court ruled 5-4 that long-standing campaign finance limits violated the free speech rights of corporations.

And by “long standing” the AP is referring to a law that was introduced ten years ago.

But this brings us to another pattern of Mr. Obama’s.

Remember how he claimed he only voted for partial abortion when he was in the Illinois Senate because he knew any law restricting it would be struck down by the Supreme Court?

This is Mr. Obama’s favorite excuse for voting for many of the radical left bills he has voted for in his brilliant (albeit brief) political career.

Well, the Supreme Court just made it damn clear that they believe corporations should have at least some minimal rights to free political speech.

But suddenly what the Supreme Court wants doesn’t matter one whit to the Constitutional Scholar, Barack Hussein Obama.

(A man who has never written a single piece of legal scholarship.)

The court ruling is expected to unleash a flood of money from the traditionally pro-Republican business community to campaigns designed to favor or oppose candidates in this year’s congressional elections and the 2012 presidential contest.

"This decision gives corporations and other special interests the power to spend unlimited amounts of money — literally millions of dollars — to affect elections throughout our country," Obama said of the ruling.

"This, in turn, will multiply their influence over decision-making in our government." …

Corporations tend to give more money to Democrats than Republicans. Mr. Obama and the DNC are afraid of money from small businesses. Whom he otherwise pretends to love.

Meanwhile, the unions – whose coffers that exceed all but the biggest corporations – are free to give to the Democrats without any controls whatsoever.

[Obama said, “t]he American people also have the right to know when some group like ‘Citizens for a Better Future’ is actually funded entirely by ‘Corporations for Weaker Oversight.’"

This is especially rich, given all of the front groups funded by the left and the unions. Scratch any liberal group and you will find the liver spotted hand of George Soros or the purple shirts of the SEIU.

Indeed, Michelle Obama’s ‘anti-childhood obesity’ campaign is a pet project of the SEIU. But we are never told that.

Obama has accused lobbyists for banks, insurance companies and other corporate entities of fighting to block or weaken key legislative priorities including healthcare reform and measures to overhaul the rules that govern the financial industry.

Mr. Obama always blames some shadowy vast nefarious conspiracy of rich people with special interests. A conspiracy whose members never can be named or substantiated by any of their actions.

Isn’t it funny how Mr. Obama’s opponents never act from honorable intentions? And yet we are supposed to believe that he always does.

This is what Mr. Obama means by his new tone of bi-partisanship.

(Thanks to Confucius for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, May 1st, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “Obama Calls For Limits On Free Speech”

  1. confucius says:

    From AP:

    Obama will fight for new campaign finance rules

    By Darlene Superville
    May 1, 2010

    WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Saturday pressed Congress for swift action on measures to restrict political advertising by corporations and labor unions, saying that “no less than the integrity of our democracy” is at stake. …

    The measures are in response to a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in January that upheld the First Amendment rights of these groups to spend money on campaign ads, thus enhancing their ability to influence federal elections.

    Obama slammed the decision at the time, saying the court had given a “green light to a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics” and pledging to work with Congress on a “forceful response” to the ruling. …

    “Now, of course, every organization has every right in this country to make their voices heard,” Obama said. “But the American people also have the right to know when some group like ‘Citizens for a Better Future’ is actually funded entirely by ‘Corporations for Weaker Oversight.'”

    The proposals also would also bar foreign-controlled corporations and government contractors from spending money on U.S. elections and prohibit political spending by companies that accepted government bailout money. Corporations and unions also must disclose campaign-related spending on their websites and report such spending to shareholders and members. …

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also has promised to fight attempts to “muzzle or demonize” independent voices in the electoral process.

    The lawmakers said their goal is to have the legislation on the books by July 4, to take effect before Nov. 2 election.


    This from the man who doesn’t follow campaign finance laws himself.

    • canary says:

      Is Obama trying to push this legislation, to cover-up that his campaign contributions were gained in the most corrupt manner in U.S. history. What the school unions did in cahoots with that huge corporate publishing company has made schools across the country broke. Education has been hit so hard by the corruptness of school officials, without even using teachers dues. Obama said the SEIU and Teachers unions get called back right away by him. He owes them. And then the at least 4 new contracts he made for his books versions for school children. Knowing he’s can’t get away with this corruption anymore, he’s dumped the teachers, and I can laugh that I knew he’d screw the teachers unions end the end, but it’s our children who will suffer, while he and his rich friends children go to rich schools. School officials & teacher unions just stepping down, and allowed their retirement after doing such illegal immoral things just doesn’t repair.
      Obama should have to give every penny of contribution money back to the children.

      And like he really took a private jet to California, so google would give him a few dollars, and complained to them that they didn’t have enough minorities working for them?

  2. MinnesotaRush says:

    And he and his groupies would like everyone to believe he’s a Constitutional Scholar .. Constitutional Law Professor .. yadda, yadda, yadda.

    He’s a very sickened and unaccomplished (at minimum) adult child of an alcoholic and completely dysfunctional family(s) whose been primped and popped up his entire life.

    I’ve yet to see any indications that he’s that terribly familiar with the Constitution; nor, what it represents.

    He’s a fast talker whose learned how to “read a room” and survive by his lying and manipulation. He’ll do most anything to be accepted and have folks “like” him .. think he’s great. In his formative years, he was dumped!

    His sycophant commie mentors were the only place he got any measure of (feigned) acceptance or worth; and that was so they could accomplish their demented agendas.

    “Obama Calls For Limits On Free Speech” .. yeah, well we need to call for .. and DEMAND .. limits on o-blah-blah!!!

  3. proreason says:

    He knows that many of his opponents will follow a law until the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional.

    But the boy king makes his own law, so he wouldn’t feel bound by it..

    • TwilightZoned says:

      I question if the boy king will simply try to justify adding more members to the Supreme Court, as Teddy Roosevelt considered when the court originally found many of the New Deal components unconstitutional. I put nothing past this thugacracy. (Fortunately Roosevelt’s Court Reorganization Bill was defeated and unfortunately the New Deal went through.)

  4. jackal40 says:

    I’m all for limiting each candidate to no more than $100,000 for their entire campaign, with no more than $10 coming from a single person or company. That should put the end to big corporations and rich individuals buying the candidate they favor and put us little people on the same level with them.

    There is the issue of television ads costing so much, but I’m sure we as a nation can solve that problem. I’m not going to advocate that the government or PACs pay for thos spots – we need a way to limit all of the access to the media to the same level.

    It would be interesting to see how the campaigns would choose to spend that money, by finding out what they’re advertising priorities are, we might learn more about the candidate.

    Just my 2¢, YMMV

    • proreason says:

      That’s what Obamy wants.

      Others would follow the rules.

      He would ignore them.

  5. Rusty Shackleford says:

    An open letter to Barack Obama

    Dear Mr Obama,

    Over the past year and before I have watched you. I have heard you speak. I have noted how your actions and your words do not coincide with one another. In fact you always do the opposite of what you tell us.

    I have noticed this.

    My friends have noticed this.

    My neighbors have noticed this.

    Just because the news doesn’t report it, doesn’t mean they haven’t noticed it.

    There are many Americans who are smart and a considerable number of them are smarter than you. They are more experienced than you. They are more adept at discerning your intentions from your words than others.

    I, we, and they do not trust you. Or, actually, it’s that we trust you all too much.

    We trust you to destroy this nation, this place you call home. This place that allowed you to grow up in a frenzied, hateful way.

    When you tell me you have my best interests at heart, I doubt you have a heart to hold my best interests in.

    When you say you want to make things better, how is making them worse helping?

    When you say you want to fundamentally change this nation, I knew what you meant. Others who were more imaginative and more trusting didn’t know what you meant.

    But you are losing ground. Every day more and more people don’t like you. Not just on a presidential level as the horrendous statesman that you are, but on deeply personal level.

    This is because you insult us all when you treat foreign leaders of friendly nations as gutter trash.

    This is because you have let us know you have no respect for your own citizens. Not even the ones who voted for you because you intend to use them as equipment to get re-elected. And, even if they don’t voice their dislike, they feel it. They are embarrassed now that they voted for you and many are even ashamed.

    As for me, I am doing the one thing I can to frustrate you. I ignore you. You are a meaningless nothing. You came from nothing and you will return from whence you came. You say nothing. Your intent is obvious to me and I knew of you long before you ever appeared.

    So go ahead and talk, I will not listen.

    Go ahead and act, I will not obey.

    Go ahead and brag and carry on and blame others. I know the truth.

    I am wise to you. “Mr President”. Title gives you nothing, for you are nothing.

    You have no experience.

    You have no background.

    You are a fool.

    And the only way to deal with a fool is to ignore them.

    2012 cannot get here fast enough for me. For that will mark the end of YOU.

    Joe Citizen.

  6. U NO HOO says:

    If an entity pays taxes it has all rights.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »