Obama will fight for new campaign finance rules

Spencer Collins · #1 (**permalink**) 05-03-2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

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.

Legislation introduced in Congress this week would require that corporations and unions identify themselves in political ads they pay for and that the chief executive or other top official state that "I approve this message."

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.

With the November midterm elections looming, Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that it was important that Congress act swiftly to ensure that the voices of the American people aren't drowned out by deep-pocketed corporations and other special interests.

The president said the proposals would give voters the important information they need to evaluate the claims in ads paid for by "shadowy campaign committees," corporations and special interests. He said he would fight to see them become law.

"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 measures are unlikely to become law without a fight.

The Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, long an ardent opponent of putting limits on campaign spending, criticized the bills as being more about election advantage than transparency, accountability or good government. He noted that two of the Democratic sponsors, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, led the effort to elect Democrats to Congress.

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.

Obama will fight for new campaign finance rules

In theory...I support the new campaign finance rules as long as they apply to both corporations and unions.That said...the devil is always in the details and I would like to read this proposal before making a final decision.

-0-

MrLiberty · #2 (**permalink**) 05-03-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Obama will fight for new campaign finance rules

In theory...I support the new campaign finance rules as long as they apply to both corporations and unions.That said...the devil is always in the details and I would like to read this proposal before making a final decision.

-0-

The only campaign finance law they should have is the candidates must post from where all their donations come from. People should be allowed to give as much as they want to a candidate, but, then we should have a right to see what corp. or union supports them as well.

Oftencold · #3 (**permalink**) 05-03-2010, 02:50 PM

In the Internet Age, I don't think that there's a very strong corollary between the money spent and the effectiveness of the massage over a certain basic level of expenditure. I'm for letting corporations, unions and anyone else spend what they like. Since most of the money will be wasted, the system should be self-correctiung.

Spencer Collins · #4 (**permalink**) 05-03-2010, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLiberty

The only campaign finance law they should have is the candidates must post from where all their donations come from. People should be allowed to give as much as they want to a candidate, but, then we should have a right to see what corp. or union supports them as well.

Exactly...

mlurp · #5 (**permalink**) 05-03-2010, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLiberty

The only campaign finance law they should have is the candidates must post from where all their donations come from. People should be allowed to give as much as they want to a candidate, but, then we should have a right to see what corp. or union supports them as well.

I think they think they have the votes so stop the other side. GREAT 2 party system we got stuck with. I'm voting for me. Can I do that?

MrLiberty · #6 (**permalink**) 05-05-2010, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlurp

I think they think they have the votes so stop the other side. GREAT 2 party system we got stuck with. I'm voting for me. Can I do that?

sure can, it's called a write in vote! And if you run for president do I write in mlurp or do you prefer lurpy?

Michael1 · #7 (**permalink**) 05-05-2010, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

That said...the devil is always in the details and I would like to read this proposal before making a final decision.
-0-

Given the track record, don't count on being able to do that...

mlurp · #8 (**permalink**) 05-05-2010, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

In the Internet Age, I don't think that there's a very strong corollary between the money spent and the effectiveness of the massage over a certain basic level of expenditure. I'm for letting corporations, unions and anyone else spend what they like. Since most of the money will be wasted, the system should be self-correctiung.

I think that is hoping for a lot. When has it ever self corrected itself?

mlurp · #9 (**permalink**) 05-05-2010, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLiberty

sure can, it's called a write in vote! And if you run for president do I write in mlurp or do you prefer lurpy?

MrLiberty would do. I sure don't want the job. If everyone would put their own name on all the ballots, would not that send a message.

Better yet no one vote period. But we know that the "D's" will vote so that idea is like self hanging.

When the EU fails and it might we could be next. So then we won't have to worry about voting.

AZRWinger · #10 (**permalink**) 05-06-2010, 08:21 AM

How ironic, the President of big money private donations from Wall Street, GE, etc. now is so concerned about "protecting" us from so-called special interests. Gosh, Mr. President maybe you could start the disclosure ball rolling by cleaning up your campaign donor rolls. For some reason I don't believe Smooth Talker who you list as an US citizen living overseas is a real person.

But we shouldn't worry, just pass another Crackerjacks bill; there is a prize inside you can only find out about after you buy it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to Spencer Collins For This Useful Post:
GottaGo

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MrLiberty For This Useful Post:
AZRWinger, Oftencold, Stinger

The Following User Says Thank You to mlurp For This Useful Post:
MrLiberty