 |
To be added or removed from the "The Wall Street Journal" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady. |
Posted on 01/24/2010 8:00:20 PM PST by GOP_Lady
WASHINGTON—Democrats are exploring ways to counter a Supreme Court ruling that threw out a century of limits on corporate political spending, hoping it will hand them a populist issue to stem a Republican tide rising on public anger.
President Barack Obama devoted his weekly address to the decision, calling it a victory for "special interests and their lobbyists." He cited "one of the great Republican presidents, Teddy Roosevelt," who "warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending" on elections.
Possible legislation includes requiring corporations to obtain shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and blocking companies from deducting election spending as a business expense on their taxes.
Another proposal, borrowed from existing rules for political candidates, is requiring "the CEO of the corporation to make a declaration at the end of an ad saying, 'I'm the CEO of X Corp. and I approved this ad,' " said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who heads the House Democrats' campaign committee.
On Thursday, justices split 5-4 along their ideological divide to grant corporations and unions the right to make unlimited expenditures promoting or attacking candidates.
Democrats had anticipated the Supreme Court's decision for months, and quickly rolled out both political rhetoric and legislative proposals.
Friday, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen met to discuss options with aides to Mr. Van Hollen and Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), as well as Justice Department staff and Fred Wertheimer, a longtime activist on campaign-finance issues, officials said.
Mr. Van Hollen said Democrats also are weighing an effort to bar companies that received federal bailouts and big government contractors from electioneering, similar to rules affecting federal employees.
Most Republicans hailed the court's decision as victory for free speech. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) said it would help individuals acting "collectively through a corporation."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Just goes to show you the Dem’s have no concept of the Constitution ... they can’t overturn a Supreme Court Ruling.
Gad, he takes on the Supreme Court!! Does his hubris know no bounds?
Will be interesting to see just what anti-First Amendment rights that they intend to counter. Do not see anything that they could do to counter this.
Actually, not sure why they are trying since they benefit as much a the Republicans with this correct ruling. I would guess that they are not trying to limit lawyers, the Sierra club, Greenpeace, or unions though...
It will make them look much more anti-speech though and if they want that, I surely won’t stand in their way...heh.
The Rats will just have to squeeze more money out of union members, take more disguised contributions from foreigners, and get more from the Hollyweirdos and obscenely rich liberals like Oprah and Streisand.
AS always, the Rats see the Constitution as something to get around.
Government versus Free Speech : A win for Free Speech terrifies liberals
At: A week in the eyes of a Demoralized Liberal, to know it is all over
Yes — that silly “Constitution” thingy keeps getting underfoot in the liberals’ desire to take over completely.
Let us pray the USC doesn’t change complexion — we are one vote away from complete fascism.
In the meantime, I hope even the lower courts see that this is a FUNDAMENTAL right and not subject to legislation.
The rats don’t want an even playing field. They took untraceable money from Overseas in 2008.
An example that got caught were the Edwan Brothers of GA. No it wasn’t the state of Ga it wa GAZA.
Once caught it became a mistake and Obama returned the 35,000 in illegal donations taken by Credit Card.
Nobody is watching the FEC. To keep them honest.
I agree with Van Hollen. I’d like to see a ‘RAT ad with someone saying, “I’m a freeloading, lardass from X CORN and I approved this ad paid for with U.S. taxpayer dollars.”
These people are determined to stay in power and if shutting down any opposition voice is necessary, then that’s what they’ll do no matter what.
Rights don't come from any Court.
Anything is possible, but McCain has thrown in the towel on campaign reform. If the Republicans stick together, there will be no further nonsense of this sort.
And I'm sure the dems will also insist that unions get member approval before funding political advertisements. When pigs fly.
A reporter Aaron Klein went to Gaza and asked the Edwan’s about the donations the said the money was to by 35,000 in Tee-Shirts.
Obama’s Campaigned turned off the Location code function on credit card donations so they could take them from world wide.
Why hasn’t this been investigated by anybody at the FEC or the GOP?
I guess an ad for A or against B could be considered an in-kind contribution to A. I guess since they can limit donations to a candidate they could limit this too, unless SCOTUS throws out contribution limits.
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' broad views about corporate spending in elections generally accord with the Supreme Court's decision Thursday that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity. Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.
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.