Republican power grab

Back in January, in my State of the Union Address, I warned of the danger posed by a Supreme Court ruling called Citizens United.

This decision overturned decades of law and precedent.

It gave the special interests the power to spend without limit and without public disclosure to run ads in order to influence elections.

Now, as an election approaches, it’s not just a theory.

We can see for ourselves how destructive to our democracy this can become.

We see it in the flood of deceptive attack ads sponsored by special interests using front groups with misleading names.

We don’t know who’s behind these ads or who’s paying for them.

Even foreign-controlled corporations seeking to influence our democracy are able to spend freely in order to swing an election toward a candidate they prefer.

We’ve tried to fix this with a new law, one that would simply require that you say who you are and who’s paying for your ad.

This way, voters are able to make an informed judgment about a group’s motivations.

Anyone running these ads would have to stand by their claims, and foreign-controlled corporations would be restricted from spending money to influence elections, just as they were before the Supreme Court opened up this loophole.

This is common sense.

In fact, this is the kind of proposal that Democrats and Republicans have agreed on for decades.

Yet, the Republican leaders in Congress have so far said “no.”

They’ve blocked this bill from even coming up for a vote in the Senate.

It’s politics at its worst, but it’s not hard to understand why.

Over the past two years, we have fought back against the entrenched special interests, weakening their hold on the levers of power in Washington.

We have taken a stand against the worst abuses of the financial industry and health insurance companies.

We’ve rolled back tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and we’ve restored enforcement of common sense rules to protect clean air and clean water.

We have refused to go along with business as usual.

Now, the special interests want to take Congress back, and return to the days when lobbyists wrote the laws, and a partisan minority in Congress is hoping their defense of these special interests and the status quo will be rewarded with a flood of negative ads against their opponents.

It’s a power grab, pure and simple.

They’re hoping they can ride this wave of unchecked influence all the way to victory.

What is clear is that Congress has a responsibility to act, but the truth is, any law will come too late to prevent the damage that has already been done this election season.

That is why, any time you see an attack ad by one of these shadowy groups, you should ask yourself, who is paying for this ad?

Is it the health insurance lobby?

The oil industry?

The credit card companies?

But more than that, you can make sure that the tens of millions of dollars spent on misleading ads do not drown out your voice.

Because no matter how many ads they run, no matter how many elections they try to buy, the power to determine the fate of this country doesn’t lie in their hands.

It lies in yours.

It’s up to all of us to defend that most basic American principle of a government of, by, and for the people.

What’s at stake is not just an election.

It’s our democracy itself.

Thank you.
 
It's simple: the right for any private individual or group to express their opinions, as long as they do not promote violence against a person or group, is guaranteed in the 1st amendment, under the headings of free speech, press and assembly. The courts actually managed to recognize this basic fact. Too bad you totalitarians can't get it: the PEOPLE are free to say what they want, using whatever means they desire to get their message out. Are there drawbacks to this freedom? Yes. But any attempt to control people's right to speak their minds through interference, limitations, or requirements from the government are far worse.
 
It's simple: the right for any private individual or group to express their opinions, as long as they do not promote violence against a person or group, is guaranteed in the 1st amendment, under the headings of free speech, press and assembly. The courts actually managed to recognize this basic fact. Too bad you totalitarians can't get it: the PEOPLE are free to say what they want, using whatever means they desire to get their message out. Are there drawbacks to this freedom? Yes. But any attempt to control people's right to speak their minds through interference, limitations, or requirements from the government are far worse.

are corporations people?
 
Back in January, in my State of the Union Address, I warned of the danger posed by a Supreme Court ruling called Citizens United.

This decision overturned decades of law and precedent.

It gave the special interests the power to spend without limit and without public disclosure to run ads in order to influence elections.

Now, as an election approaches, it’s not just a theory.

We can see for ourselves how destructive to our democracy this can become.

We see it in the flood of deceptive attack ads sponsored by special interests using front groups with misleading names.

We don’t know who’s behind these ads or who’s paying for them.

Even foreign-controlled corporations seeking to influence our democracy are able to spend freely in order to swing an election toward a candidate they prefer.

We’ve tried to fix this with a new law, one that would simply require that you say who you are and who’s paying for your ad.

This way, voters are able to make an informed judgment about a group’s motivations.

Anyone running these ads would have to stand by their claims, and foreign-controlled corporations would be restricted from spending money to influence elections, just as they were before the Supreme Court opened up this loophole.

This is common sense.

In fact, this is the kind of proposal that Democrats and Republicans have agreed on for decades.

Yet, the Republican leaders in Congress have so far said “no.”

They’ve blocked this bill from even coming up for a vote in the Senate.

It’s politics at its worst, but it’s not hard to understand why.

Over the past two years, we have fought back against the entrenched special interests, weakening their hold on the levers of power in Washington.

We have taken a stand against the worst abuses of the financial industry and health insurance companies.
Its almost funny....Obama fought back against special interests?
He GAVE the United Auto Workers a car company....nice gift with our tax dollars....
and abuses in the financial industry and health insurance companies?
what a joke....imaginary abuses at best.....to justify his attempt of a government takeover of banking and his socialist healthcare wetdream....
and then has the gall to claim the Republicans are on a power grab....?

This guy has balls, thats for sure....a dangerous combination...a liar with balls and in the most powerful position on earth....
 
are corporations people?
Corporations are formed by people. If you can think of a way to shut up a corporation without tramping the 1st amendment rights of those who own/operate them, good luck to you. Also, in the case of "front groups with misleading names", they are often corporations formed for the expressed purpose of promoting a particular political viewpoint. (which brings about another point: making those front groups name their donors is as useless as lips on a chicken. One more layer of who gives what to whom and we'll still not know anything, while forcing legitimate associations extra work and expense meeting federal regulations on their free speech rights.*)

And while I am in favor of removing the influence of big money from the political process, I also recognize that pretty much every method you can name will have more negative consequences against legitimate assemblies representing the opinions of groups of people. I would rather have the people free than stifle them as an expense of stifling big money interests.

*(Addendum: does anyone else just get sick to the stomach at the idea of federal regulations on free speech?)
 
Last edited:
did you read scalia's concurrence?

no, however, there was a scotus decision that designated corporations as people - i think that was wrong as how can the government punish a corporation like it can punish a citizen
 
"We don’t know who’s behind these ads or who’s paying for them.

Even foreign-controlled corporations seeking to influence our democracy are able to spend freely in order to swing an election toward a candidate they prefer."

So the republicon party's communist allies in china can spend all they want to influence our elections and no one is allowed to know where the money comes from-and you wingnuts are for this?
 
"We don’t know who’s behind these ads or who’s paying for them.

Even foreign-controlled corporations seeking to influence our democracy are able to spend freely in order to swing an election toward a candidate they prefer."

So the republicon party's communist allies in china can spend all they want to influence our elections and no one is allowed to know where the money comes from-and you wingnuts are for this?
Not a sound, I guess they are for it! It sickens me!
 
Corporations are formed by people. If you can think of a way to shut up a corporation without tramping the 1st amendment rights of those who own/operate them, good luck to you. Also, in the case of "front groups with misleading names", they are often corporations formed for the expressed purpose of promoting a particular political viewpoint. (which brings about another point: making those front groups name their donors is as useless as lips on a chicken. One more layer of who gives what to whom and we'll still not know anything, while forcing legitimate associations extra work and expense meeting federal regulations on their free speech rights.*)

And while I am in favor of removing the influence of big money from the political process, I also recognize that pretty much every method you can name will have more negative consequences against legitimate assemblies representing the opinions of groups of people. I would rather have the people free than stifle them as an expense of stifling big money interests.

*(Addendum: does anyone else just get sick to the stomach at the idea of federal regulations on free speech?)


Can corporations vote?
 
Can't you say the same things about unions? Can they vote?
I don't believe unions should have power to influence elections, either, so wrong girl! The only people who should be able to donate money to elections are people! Now if a group of people want to get together and decide to vote the same way, fine with me, but each individual should only be able to give name and not in the name of the union, does that make sense?!
 
just a follow up to your question. Corps and unions were granted the same status as far as ability to donate money in the ruling yet the complaints of the ruling seem to focus mostly on corporations but not unions.


Because corporations have like shitloads more money than unions.
 
Back
Top