Obama, "Campaign Finance Ruling Devastating to Our Democracy"

In this week's address, President Barack Obama vowed to continue fighting for the American people to ensure their voices are heard over the special interests and lobbyists in Washington, despite this week's Supreme Court decision to further empower corporations to use their financial clout to directly influence elections.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Obama
• Campaign Finance
• ruling
• reform
• devastating
• Democracy
• corporations
• special interests
• lobbyists
• corporate influence
• readersupportednews.

[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!

[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!

[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]

Correction:

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

[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]

"... 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]

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]

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.

[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?