Obama, "Campaign Finance Ruling Devastating to Our Democracy"

[xxtallcottonxx]

This is BBBBUUUUULLLLLLSSHHHIIITTT! Some of the biggest contributors to his Re-Election campaign are Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan e.tc. all companies that we paid to bail out! HE IS THE BIGGEST BENEFACTOR OF SPECIAL INTEREST CORPORATIONS! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

[vince99percent]

Nice talk. Now tell us about your connection to Monsanto :)

[tophu1021]

If Obama fights and wins for Campaign Finance Reform, I would be the first to dub him one of the greatest presidents in history.

[substanti8]

"The Court's blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the Amendment was meant to serve. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process. Americans may be forgiven if they do not feel the Court has advanced the cause of self-government." -- Justice Stevens

[chiggerno19]

WHAT?????? How about National Security and the Economy - both of which you have FAILED to accomplish anything.  What are you worried about Obama? The Labor Unions donated a billion dollars in 2008 to get you and other Democrats elected. Eighty -three percent of lawyers donate to Democrats. Hollywood. Just another crisis of the day to distract US citizens from the fact that you have badly misjudged the American people and how fiercely we protect our freedoms against those that do us harm. YOU.

[10beandad]

The text of the First Amendment says simply that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech." Congress is granted no exceptions in this. With McCain-Feingold (2002), Congress abridged certain categories of free speech during the closing weeks of political campaigns in direct violation of the very plain language of the First Amendment. In 'Citizens', the S.C. simply rolled back an over-reaching Congress. It actually did its job in this case, and that seems to scare Obama.

[substanti8]

@10beandad

"The text of the First Amendment says ..."

You need to understand that the meaning of the Constitution is also determined by the rulings of the Supreme Court. The narrow view that you offer here is an example of the kind of thinking that does so much damage to the jurisprudence of our society.

[10beandad]

Thanks for your comments. No doubt Hamilton chose his words carefully in Federalist #78: "It therefore belongs to them [courts] to ascertain its [the constitution's] meaning..." The verb, "ascertain" (Hamilton) has a different meaning than the verb, "determine" (substanti8). As an appointed, not elected, body the S.C. is meant to be the least influential branch in shaping law. Also, what is the damage you speak of? Suely, prudent people can filter out corporate bias in ads, can we not?

[substanti8]

Hamilton may have wanted the Judicial Branch to limit its power to "ascertaining" the Constitution's meaning, as you point out. But that's not how the country evolved long after he was gone. And as we were reminded two weeks ago, the Court if often the most powerful branch, despite being appointed.

"Surely, prudent people can filter out corporate bias in ads, can we not?"

Of an individual ad? Yes. But the overall effect is the issue here. See the following comments from the dissenting opinion.

[substanti8]

law. cornell. edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html

"All of the majority's theoretical arguments turn on a proposition with undeniable surface appeal but little grounding in evidence or experience, 'that there is no such thing as too much speech,' [quoting Scalia]. If individuals in our society had infinite free time to listen to and contemplate every last bit of speech uttered by anyone, anywhere; and if broadcast advertisements had no special ability to influence elections ..."

[substanti8]

"... apart from the merits of their arguments (to the extent they make any); and if legislators always operated with nothing less than perfect virtue; then I suppose the majority's premise would be sound. In the real world, we have seen, corporate domination of the airwaves prior to an election may decrease the average listener's exposure to relevant viewpoints, and it may diminish citizens' willingness and capacity to participate in the democratic process." -- Justice Stevens (Sec. IV, Part 1)

[substanti8]

On second thought, scratch what I said earlier about "ascertain" because that word does describe what the Supreme Court usually does today. They take the very limited words of the Constitution and add more detailed meaning, especially has the country evolved into forms very imagined by the original framers.

[substanti8]

Correction:

... especially AS the country evolved into forms NOT imagined by the original framers.

[justmepatc]

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! This latest fiasco by the Supreme Court is one of the worst rulings, besides ignoring the voters in the Bush/Gore election! President Obama's reaction isn't for his personal gain, it's for "We The People" whose vote or wishes will be smothered by BIG money from BIG corporations...ending in ramming it to the "common" folk who this country BELONGS TO!

[10beandad]

Given Obama's rhetorical flourishes which so often pivot on the demonization of certain successful corporations and industries, it isn't suprising that he is so vehemently opposed to the idea of corporate funding of political speech. More than anything Republicans do in the next 3 years, this Supreme Court decision threatens Obama's viability as a two term President. Expect the financial sector to spend lavishly on anti-Obama advertising during October and November of 2012.

[jfkjrlover]

End corporate personhood! It is absolutely crazy that this country legally considers corporations people. There is no democracy for common, working-class people as long as the wealthy, multi-million/billion companies can bribe and brainwash!