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

Skip to comments.

Obama blasts Supreme Court campaign finance ruling
Breitbart (AP) ^ | January 23, 2010 | Darlene Superville

Posted on 01/23/2010 4:52:47 AM PST by Cheap_Hessian

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Saturday sharply criticized a Supreme Court decision easing limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions, saying he couldn't "think of anything more devastating to the public interest." He also suggested the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda.

In its 5-4 decision this week, the high court overturned two decisions and 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.

Portraying himself as aligned with the people and not special interests, Obama said the decision was unacceptable.

"This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," the president said in his weekly radio and Internet message.

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


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: campaignfinance; firstamendment; obama; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

1 posted on 01/23/2010 4:52:48 AM PST by Cheap_Hessian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Once again the commie in the big house shows his utter distain and hatred for our constitution.


2 posted on 01/23/2010 4:54:29 AM PST by JohnLongIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
What a flipping hypocrite. This man had millions pumped into his campaign from foreign sources, which is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL and then he has the audacity to question the Justice's ruling?

The Schmuck needs to shut up. The people have spoken in three BLUE states, but yet he keeps running that ignorant mouth.

3 posted on 01/23/2010 4:57:17 AM PST by Paige ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

I was astounded at the squeals of horror, from every leftist squeaky wheel on the radio following the decision. While on the right, they were explaining the “book banning” issue addressed by the court and which caused the court great concern such that they were literally forced to make the decision they did based on the first amendment, nothing of explanation was taking place on the left just mindless squealing about how could the court undo what congress had made law.


4 posted on 01/23/2010 4:58:16 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

I would have been surprised if he didn’t complain about it.


5 posted on 01/23/2010 4:58:53 AM PST by ThreePuttinDude (o).. Elect Marco Rubio in 2010 .. (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

“He also suggested the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda.”

Exactly why this ruling is such a Godsend. Thanks to the 5 reasonable thinkers on the SCOTUS! At least they know what the meaning of Liberty is.

What an arrogant SOB this BHO really is, Jeopardize your domestic agenda, I SURE AS HADES HOPE SO!


6 posted on 01/23/2010 5:00:28 AM PST by Shady (The Fairness Doctrine is ANYTHING but fair!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

“”This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” said Obama.”

WOW!

What strikes at our democracy is the legislation itself! The ruling helps restore it!


7 posted on 01/23/2010 5:00:31 AM PST by Castigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paige

The ruling also allows unions to run ads so it’s all fair. The more info that gets out the better for our side.


8 posted on 01/23/2010 5:00:47 AM PST by refermech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
Here's the previous running thread
9 posted on 01/23/2010 5:00:56 AM PST by ASA Vet (Iran should have ceased to exist Nov 5, 1979, but we had no president then either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wita

...and the forgotten issue was the four boobs on the court who just couldn’t bring themselves to side with the Constitution. This should have been a complete majority decision, the evidence was overwhelming.


10 posted on 01/23/2010 5:01:32 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
Presidents to my recollection do not usually comment on Supreme Court Rulings. This guy can't keep his mouth shut and remember the separation of powers and the three branches. Their are 6th and 7th graders studying American History that know more that he....
11 posted on 01/23/2010 5:03:39 AM PST by taildragger (Palin/Mulally 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Karma is beautiful. One day after he goes after the banks, costing investors billions in capital.

You think the first “special interests” who come out with some ads will be banks/investors - splaining to the public how Obama’s plan has already cost 401ks billions in equity.


12 posted on 01/23/2010 5:06:18 AM PST by nhwingut (Palin/Bachmann '12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnLongIsland
They are circling the wagons for a full assault. My congressman in Ohio, John Boccieri, came out swinging about the court's assault on freedom. They continue to turn the truth on it's head hoping they can fool enough people.

Get ready for Obama to spend Billions on temporary jobs and government expansion to get unemployment down.

13 posted on 01/23/2010 5:07:10 AM PST by paguch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
Obama blasts Supreme Court campaign finance ruling

Can't this guy let one day pass without attacking a consitutionally protected right?

Of course not. Silly me...*sigh*

14 posted on 01/23/2010 5:07:49 AM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

And how many hundreds of millions in unidentified donations in ‘08 allowed BO to have so much campaign cash that he didn’t have to abide by McCain-Feingold? I have yet to hear any media type ask him that question.
If labor unions, such as SEIU, can support candidates with millions of dollars, then corporations should be able to contribute, too. That’s why the Dems are howling.


15 posted on 01/23/2010 5:09:00 AM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

All the more reason to get him out of there before he has a chance to put more of his own people on there. Pray for the good health of the 5 who voted right.


16 posted on 01/23/2010 5:13:43 AM PST by Past Your Eyes (You don't have to be ignorant to be a Democrat...but if you are...so what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paige

Maybe Obama can take refuge in some foreign embassy or something?


17 posted on 01/23/2010 5:17:08 AM PST by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

This ruling from the Supreme Court restores the basic right of free speech to corporations and labor unions. Of course, liberals want free speech censored or silenced. We, the People need all the information we can get from many sources so that we can make our own decisions about politics and politicians. Thanks to our Supreme Court for following our Constitution.


18 posted on 01/23/2010 5:17:47 AM PST by jazzlite (esat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
"He also suggested the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda."

Yay!!!!!!

19 posted on 01/23/2010 5:18:12 AM PST by NoGrayZone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: refermech

The unions had always been semi-exempted from the provisions of McCain Feingold. This just puts other organizations on the same footing. This ranges from corporations to political parties, which were also very limited in what they could contribute to their own candidates.

Something that many people are not mentioning or possibly don’t know is how this is going to improve things for local political party organizations. I worked at local GOP headquarters in the last several Presidential campaigns, and many of the other volunteers were retirees or people without much skill in handling paper work. The Dems hired lawyers to go through all of our transactions, and they found one where an elderly volunteer had mistakenly recorded the purchase of a table of ten at a fund raiser as having been purchased by one individual, which exceeded the limit and also constituted a group. The individual had actually written the check to pay for himself and 9 other people who had paid him separately for their tickets. He wrote one check simply for convenience. She was supposed to have recorded each individual separately, and we actually got into trouble for this “campaign finance violation.”

The Dems used these bizarre regulations to seriously handicap our fundraising and intimidate our volunteers (who were told they could go to jail for these “violations”).


20 posted on 01/23/2010 5:23:26 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

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