Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama continues to assail Supreme Court decision

By Michael A. Fletcher
President Obama continued to assail the Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate spending in political campaigns, saying Saturday that the ruling "strikes at our democracy itself."

Speaking in his weekly address, Obama said the ruling this week "handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists - and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence."

Though experts agree Democrats have few options, Obama said he has directed members of his administration to work with a bipartisan group of legislators to craft a law setting new limits that meet Constitutional muster.

"We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done," he said.

Without new legislation, he said, Obama said corporations and other special interests would have undue power in Washington. "This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," he said. "It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way - or to punish those who don't... I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest."

The court's 5 to 4 decision concluded that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals and, therefore, can spend as much company money as they wish to oppose or support individual political candidates.

Invoking former President Teddy Roosevelt, who fought against undue corporate influence on government, Obama promised to stand up for the interests of ordinary Americans.

"As long as I'm your President, I'll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you," he said.

By Michael A. Fletcher  |  January 23, 2010; 10:00 AM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency , Barack Obama  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's town-hall meeting in Ohio: The transcript
Next: Democrats vow to move forward with health reform

Comments

"I am terrified that Obama will sell his populist lie, and people will eat it up. Liberals are that dumb, hope rest of Democrats and nobody else are!"

Posted by: eddcruz | January 23, 2010 3:23 PM

Yeah I was also hoping George W. Bush was not that dumb but last I checked, he was knocked off the first round of "Are you smarter than a 5th grader." Thanks to him and Obama you can now cross off an African American and mentally challenged (George W) as ascending to the Presidency.

Posted by: sloride21 | January 28, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

This Supreme Court Decision calls for a general boycott of all products of all international corporations. We don't need them. We have the barter system, and we are creative and resourceful. If that doesn't work, then the whole country should take to the streets.

Posted by: adonkeyneverforgetsandneverbacksdown | January 28, 2010 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Yes, let's blame everything on the liberals. If it rains, blame a liberal. If you don't have a job anymore, blame a liberal. If your house catches fire....well, you get the idea. Plus, we all know, liberals are the ones that screwed this country over for the past 8 years.
This is NOT about free speech. Unless you can also donate unlimited amounts of your own money to a candidate, the corporations will always win out.
I figured liberals and conservatives would agree on this one, but it seems I am wrong again. Let's just change the name of this country to the United Corporations of America. Makes me SICK!

Posted by: hnoel79 | January 25, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

What irks me the most is that money = free speech.

Somehow I doubt this was the intention of the 1st Amendment.

Posted by: trident420 | January 25, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"see obozo failed to mention the muzlum connection that should be banned. He recieved more money from his foriegn muzlum roots than he got from corporations. All donations from other countries should be a disqualifier for politics."

Seth Meyers hit it on the head when he said the tea party movement has produced the most misspelled placards in the history of grass roots movements.

Of course, when the head of teaparty.org can't even spell the 'N' word on his own protest sign, you know Hitler is looking up from Hell and flashing a bit of a smile.

Posted by: Ripley123 | January 24, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." What part of this do you people not understand. I does not even mention corporations. If Obama doesn't like the constitution he should begin the process of amending it. Other than that he should respect and defend it according to his oath.

Posted by: djoshimisk | January 24, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: andi-prama | January 24, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama, the man who went back on his word to take public financing, doesn't want to take his part of the blame.

Could this guy be more of a blamer?

Posted by: newagent99 | January 24, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I see obozo failed to mention the muzlum connection that should be banned. He recieved more money from his foriegn muzlum roots than he got from corporations. All donations from other countries should be a disqualifier for politics.

Posted by: jcdooley | January 24, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

"Common sense would have teabag nation backing Obama to the hilt on this... but you know about teabagging and common sense...dittoheads... special.

Posted by: seakeys"

Dis dude is complaining about dittoheads. hmmm

Posted by: vic5 | January 24, 2010 3:08 AM | Report abuse

I just read where some of the Justices on The Supreme Court were thinking of retiring. This should have happened before this asinine decision was handed down. It is not only wrong, but it is morally wrong for them to vote party lines on anything. Each decision is sworn to be made in the best interest of the people of The United States of America. This has made a sham of that. We don't need the Homeland Security anymore. The US of A is going to be destroyed from within. With clowns such as our Congress and now The Supreme Court. I remember going to school and learning what a wonderful country we lived in and now it has come to this. We are quickly becoming the laughing stock of the whole world. A lot of people think they are harming The President, the Congress, or individual Representatives when all along the only ones that are going to be hurt are ourselves. I for one say that if any of the Justices want to abandon ship then don't let the door hit them in the butt. Good riddance.

Posted by: racam | January 23, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

It's pitiful how many of the posts here have been written by people who obviously don't understand the issue at all. If Obama is for something, they are agianst it, even if they don't know why. If Obama is against something, then they feel compelled to post a comment for it, no matter how childish.
It's always all about Obama with these people.

Posted by: parkerjere | January 23, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

I have more of an issue with the President't knee-jerk reaction to the Court's decision than anything the court did. I cannot recall anytime a sitting President lambasted the Court as thoughtlessly as did Mr. Obama today. ("The Cambridge police acted stupidly" Remember that little morsel?) When everyone in the whole country is screaming at each other, the President chose this particular moment to escalate the conversation to a whole level of bitter and savage discourse. Yeah, go after SCOTUS. There's a safe populist stance. Perfect timing, brah. Of course, Bill Clinton also promised to circumvent the Court and the Constitution when the blackrobes upset his plans to do warrantless gun raids in public housing. At least this time Obama only opposes free speech. Oh, BTW, if corporations weren't considered artificial persons (as opposed to natural persons, like me) the government couldn't tax or regulate them, as entities, that is. Something to think about, anyway. So put the kids to bed and grab some popcorn. This may get gory yet.

Posted by: knoxrich | January 23, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

I have more of an issue with the President't knee-jerk reaction to the Court's decision than anything the court did. I cannot recall anytime a sitting President lambasted the Court as thoughtlessly as did Mr. Obama today. ("The Cambridge police acted stupidly" Remember that little morsel?) When everyone in the whole country is screaming at each other, the President chose this particular moment to escalate the conversation to a whole level of bitter and savage discourse. Yeah, go after SCOTUS. There's a safe populist stance. Perfect timing, brah. Of course, Bill Clinton also promised to circumvent the Court and the Constitution when the blackrobes upset his plans to do warrantless gun raids in public housing. At least this time Obama only opposes free speech. Oh, BTW, if corporations we're considered artificial persons (as opposed to natural persons, like me) the government couldn't tax or regulate them, as entities, that is. Something to think about, anyway. So put the kids to bed and grab some popcorn. This may get gory yet.

Posted by: knoxrich | January 23, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

In regard to this in the story: "Speaking in his weekly address, Obama said the ruling this week "handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists - and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence."

Though experts agree Democrats have few options, Obama said he has directed members of his administration to work with a bipartisan group of legislators to craft a law setting new limits that meet Constitutional muster."

Tostitos is absolutely right. What a hypocrite the occupant of the White House is. But he didn't just refuse matching funds in order to get around campaign limits.

Remember the "fairness doctrine" that was floated several months ago? The plan was to force Fox off the air for providing "insufficient" balanced infromation (ie political correctness/ socialist crap).

Remember the move to try to censor the internet? And take a look at the White House website. Are they REALLY "setting the record straight" or just trying to silence divergent opinion?

Remember the trial balloons to "support" (ie have taxpayers pay for for) "responsible" print media such as the Washington Post and the New York Times? So that we could have "balanced" and "unbiased" news similar to NPR?

There won't be a bipartisan group making the laws Obama suggests, because the clear agenda of the socialist progressive fringe of the left party is to silence all opponents. In the current toxic political atmosphere, Republicans who join in with "progressives" to help the latter with their agenda are going to be in for a rough time come November.

Posted by: tacheronb | January 23, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

ROFL, the leftists think Free Speech is judicial activism. This gives further meaning to Obama's ignorant tingly leg voters...
Now when Obama trashes the economic engines of the country with the help of the leftist media, they can talk back...

Why do leftists hate Free Speech, hate corporattions that produce JOBS and why do they like to kill innocent babies just before they take their first breath or sometimes just after...

Posted by: sophic | January 23, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

ROFL, the leftists think Free Speech is judicial activism. This gives further meaning to Obama's ignorant tingly leg voters...
Now when Obama trashes the economic engines of the country with the help of the leftist media, they can talk back...

Why do leftists hate Free Speech, hate corporattions that produce JOBS and why do they like to kill innocent babies just before they take their first breath or sometimes just after...

Posted by: sophic | January 23, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are starting to freak out. How can they win in 2010 and 2012 if free speech is allowed?

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | January 23, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

This Court ruling just took two fingers of Obama's grip off the neck of 'we the people.'

Posted by: prossers7 | January 23, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

""Says the guy who turned down federal matching funds in the last election so he could rake in an unlimited amount of cash and not have to report who or where it came from. Posted by: 0460""

Posted by: Tostitos | January 23, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

All you liberals. Can you point to me where in the First amendment it says that you have to be a person to exercise free speech. No, the Nazi libs don't believe in the constitution. They only cite it when it suits them. They are out to destroy it with their leader Obama. A free people are not afraid of speech or of their government. VA, NJ and MA showed us that the American people are throwing off the shackles the Libs have put on us. You Nazis have awakened a sleeping giant and he is coming after you with a terrible resolve.

Posted by: greatmag2 | January 23, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

With the (now obsolete) restrictions in place corporate/political corruption, while difficult to prove as most big money corruption is, was rampant in politics. With these restrictions removed corruption will actually be minimized to the extent that 1; what was illegal is now legal and 2; Big money interests will "vet" a candidate before endorsing them and more than likely hand pick a candidate that already has committed to their needs in a way becoming a de facto employee of the corporate entity or industry sector. The need to seek political favors or even bribe a politician will be less necessary. With the vast resources and talent pool available to mega corporations they can truly create the story of the candidate, embellish on it and bombard all forms of communication IE TV, internet blogs, mass email fabrication, news print, magazine articles and radio on all fronts. You can already hear the right wing pundits’ drooling over every new release whether it is in praise of their candidate or in detriment to the opponent. Of course the left will have the Unions to look to but that leaves out the rest of the country who aren't related to big money or unions. An enormous schism is about to be created between the "people" of this country and manmade entities that now have the right to exercise unthinkable clout and power unrestrained. Hey, the good news is many jobs will be created to fill the marketing needs in this new corpocracy’s political agenda.

Posted by: the4cs | January 23, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

SeniorVet wrote:
"What will he do when the Unions want to contribute to his political campaign as they did in 2008? Will he refuse their contributions?"

Unions were and are under the same rules as corporations. So this ruling gives the unions MORE power. Now how do you feel?

"Something wrong here!"

There is, but now how you think.

Posted by: SeniorVet

Posted by: presto668 | January 23, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

I am much more fearful of liberals than I am corporations. Liberals want to dictate how I should live while corporations want to earn profits by meeting my needs as I perceive them.

A liberal will say I should be prohibited from driving anything other than a tiny electric car while auto manufacturers will let me decide which type of vehicle fits my needs.

If corporate campaign money can get some of the liberals out of government then I say God bless them.

Posted by: wvshooter | January 23, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

ProCounsel wrote:
"business leaders do NOT have to take his bullying anymore without a tv response"

Uh, they always could make a TV response, as long as it wasn't a campaign ad. They were only forbidden to use money to directly make ads for a candidate.

"and obama--most of corporate america is far smarter than team obama and will have better responses"

Yeah, like those clever folks in the auto industry. Geniuses, all.

"AFTER ads patients come to the drs office DEMANDING a prescription for a named drug"

You say that like it's a good thing.

Posted by: presto668 | January 23, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

If it is true that the influence of money in campaigns buys votes, then unlimited money can buy something like unlimited votes. Following this generally agreed upon logic, coupled with empirical observations of the way greater spending impacts campaign outcomes, this decision has now transformed the nature of our political system from a republic to an oligarchy.

Hence, this one Supreme Court decision is almost certainly the most important act of government in most of our lifetimes. If Obama does everything wrong in his Presidency aside from fighting this dcision tooth and nail, he will have fulfilled his promise of hope.

Posted by: ReframeAmerica | January 23, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama is right that this is a body blow to democracy. Now no citizens issue will get anywhere without a wealthy corporate patron. This will profoundly alter the character of our country. And it may amount to the final blow to our republic. Even if there is value in the lifting of restrictions on "speech" that this decision allows for, it is surely dwarfed by the way in which it allow for the drowning out of all other speech.

As the whole social agenda of the Republican party is anathema to most corporate powers, this is not simply an issue for Democrats. Only a fig leaf of popular support will come to cover the corporate agenda in both parties.

Each of us needs to begin organizing for the creation of two constitutional amendments: one ending corporate personhood and another ending the right of corporations to contribute to political campaigns. Write your representatives and sign all the petitions you can. If we act half-heartedly on this issue, it may be the last issue we act on.

Posted by: ReframeAmerica | January 23, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I am terrified that Obama will sell his populist lie, and people will eat it up. Liberals are that dumb, hope rest of Democrats and nobody else are!

Posted by: eddcruz | January 23, 2010 3:23 PM

==========

You must have bought into the Fox News, Fox Business, Glenn Beck stuff that if Scott Brown was elected there would be a bull run in equities.

Or maybe they meant the Bull would get the runs.

There are always a number of people that will just completely lie about anything. Fox, Rush, Glenn, Laura ... what's sad is how many complete fools there are in the Republican base that believe the stuff.

Conservatives are a great model of how the Nazis succeeded with their lies.

Posted by: James10 | January 23, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Tostitos said: "Obama set a record for contributions and refuses to release where that money came from despite numerous requests. Did that money come illegally from corporations or George Soros? At least with this legislation, people are forced to disclose the source of funding. That is real transparency, not the kind of transparency we've seen from Obama. If Obama took matching funds in the 2008 election or released his contributor list, his outrage wouldn't sound so phony. People are really gullible to fall for his constant populist (& hypocritical) rhetoric."
----------------------------

Not surprisingly Obama broke a pledge he took in the primaries to take matching funds during the election. We need vomit emoticons when reading these articles where he carries on about special interests buying elections.

Posted by: 0460 | January 23, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Campaign contributions from the private sector should be made against the law. People wishing to run for public office should be required to obtain a certain number of signatures on petitions, and if they reach the quota they should be provided money from the government--and the amounts don't need to be excessively large. They should also be provided a certain amount of time for TV and radio ads.
This will kill the undue political influence purchased by any private persons or groups that is really warping our democracy away from representation of the people as a whole.
This should be the first step in reforming our government; it would end the choke-hold the Republicans and Democrats (which are much more similar than they are different from each other, both being paid off/purchased by the same monied interests) and their media lackeys have on the political debate in this country.

Posted by: parkerjere | January 23, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Let the sheet head whine. Corporations don't vote. People do, and we're not forgetting the incompetent dumbas$ in the White House or his corrupt party.

Posted by: LarryG62 | January 23, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama may be shaking a fist at the Supreme Court and corporations above the table, but you can be sure that the other hand is open and outstretched under the table looking for the "silver" to cross his palm.

Posted by: DQuixote1 | January 23, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

The president is right in attacking the supreme court decision! Corporations and other organizations should be prohibited from donating to politicians...??? Uh, that means he doesn't think that UNIONS should contribute to political campaigns???
Ohmy gosh! What will he do when the Unions want to contribute to his political campaign as they did in 2008? Will he refuse their contributions? What is he thinking?
Something wrong here!

Posted by: SeniorVet | January 23, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

A quick trip to www.MAPLight.org will prove obama has gotten more special interest money than anybody else on most issues.

Go ahead-check it out.

Posted by: cathyjs | January 23, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

The corporations who control the media have an instant outlet (newspapers, TV) and give their opinions daily. Even the most ardent of democrats recognize the bias in the media but no one criticizes their ability to do so on a regular basis. Now other corporations will have an opportunity to give their opinion. What's the big deal?

Posted by: Tostitos | January 23, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Truthhurts wrote;
Your arguments may be good but still fallible.

For example, is not G.E. the parent company of NBC which just shot itself in the foot by having to severance Conan to put Leno back in the late night spot ? See the Corporation did not care about the public, ie. Conan fans. The bottom-line is profit.

+++++

You're missing a very large point. NBC is taking care of their and GE stockholders and their clients (advertisers) by canning Conan. If you want to call the viewing public the 'client', they are also responding to their wish, as Conan obviously doesn't fulfill the desires of the 11:35pm public as his ratings prove.

So, I don't belive your argument on that point holds any water.

++++

Truthhurts wrote; "Point of order, small business employs most of America, not corporations:"

+++++++

That statement is fully inaccurate. Most, and I mean 90+%, not 51% of small businesses are corporations chartered as S-Corporations.

Even the business that has a lone employee more than likely is charted as a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). And for those few that don't incorporate for the whopping sum of around one hundred dollars, they are fools as they miss out on the tax advantages of doing so and expose their entire family to liability.

Surely you have friends & neighbors or have just seen guys driving around in new trucks/cars with the name of their company painted neatly upon the door or back window. That $50K Chevy Tahoe he's driving only cost him $38K in actual dollars. (If he's in the 28% tax bracket and $32.5K if he's in the 35% bracket)...

++++

Posted by: Hawaiian_Gecko | January 23, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

The change in the law is a travesty.
This will make ACORN's challenge of influencing outcomes all that much difficult (poor dears), and take more hard-working union members out of their warm, dry union halls and out onto the cold, wet streets beating the crap out of the opposition... coming to the aid of PA Black Panthers and other Thugocrats to stifle free speech by other points of view... Bless their hearts. After all the groundwork the Democrats have engaged in to get SEIU, ACORN, Teachers, and favored media outlets etc. aligned and speaking out, this will allow opposing points of view to be heard without limits or constraints. Speech is dangerous when you have precious little public support to back up your policies or plans. And that, as O and his team says, is unacceptable.

Posted by: dbsinOakRidge | January 23, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I am a conservative Independent and I did not vote for Obama. But I will vote for him in less than three years.

CEOs in big corporations said candidates wrote them to beg for money so they donate. We should take this complaint seriously and outlaw candidates from asking for money from any corporations and groups.

I would be willing to donate money for elections with my tax returns, but Voting with Dollars seems very logical.

I have been a naturalized citizen for more than 20 years. I came for political freedom and my voting rights. I am not about to give it up in my dream country.

Posted by: dummy4peace | January 23, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform

Voting with Dollars is my favorite proposal initiated by Yale professors.

After the supreme court ruling, we no longer have one vote for one person. Some groups/corporations now have more weights with money on their votes than the rest of the population.

In this global economy, many US corporations are global multi-national corporations. The White House is now the best government money can buy by foreign entities. America the Beautiful is now sad history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_the_Beautiful

Posted by: dummy4peace | January 23, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his Harvard colleagues have all been looking down their noses at the rest of us, as if they have a monopoly on intelligence and morality. But now, the Emperor has no clothes. And it is there for all to see.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | January 23, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"The truth is that Obama is the president who will do what he says while he is in the White House. Just watch!"

Posted by: dummy4peace

--------------------------------------

I hope he finds the balls to do that. So far that's not the case. That's why we walked away from the polls in NJ, VA and Mass. He has not kept his word.
And if there's no Public Option in the health reform legislation, the Repigs will have a field day because we'll abandon the Dems again.

Democrats win nothing without the Left. Too bad they chose to learn this fact the hard way.

Posted by: captainkona | January 23, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Every person is a 'special interest' and a lobbyist. Even an infant crying for his mother's milk is lobbying.

Posted by: Hawaiian_Gecko | January 23, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I am terrified that Obama will sell his populist lie, and people will eat it up. Liberals are that dumb, hope rest of Democrats and nobody else are!

Posted by: eddcruz | January 23, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama should protest this ruling. It is the worst ever next to Dred Scott. All politicians take corporate money and are influenced by corporations, but this ruling makes a bad situation much much worse. If this ruling stands, large corporations will be able to abuse their billions in profits to buy every legislature, executive branch, and judiciary in the nation. In reality this ruling has almost nothing to do with free speech, it is about the fundamental legitimacy of all of our institutions. This ruling has undone the respectability of the Supreme Court; the five assenting Justices have overstepped their collective reach. It is NOT Constitutional to overthrow the votes of ALL American citizens and there is no rationale that makes it so. Conservatives, blinded be crass partisanship, refuse to see the real and devastating implications of this ruling. Corporations are NOT citizens of the United States. They are aggregates of wealth that exist to produce more wealth PERIOD! They have no responsibility to the public good unless government forces them to be responsible. If they completely control the government, then all of us have been disfranchised. Our founders placed a high value on separation between church and state due to Europe's long history of religious warfare. If church's, aggregates of faith, are not permitted to be regarded as legal person's, why are corporations? This ruling should be Unconstitutional because it in effect gives the officers of corporations more than one vote, undoing the "one man one vote" principle. I hope that this crisis can be resolved peacefully. Most will regard this last remark with scorn, but that is only because we Americans are a reactive people. Until the crisis becomes unbearable, there will be no massive push to act. If Obama can reduce the damage somehow than history will praise him, we may yet avoid a second civil war.

Posted by: dzippere | January 23, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

"Well, you idiots, this supreme court ruling is 100% Fascism, what conservative capitalist drool for."

Exactly, nacirema...

These stinking Nazi wretches have basically ruled against the average American being able to campaign for public office. Which is a denial of their constitutional rights to do so.

This ruling proves conclusively that vermin like Thomas, Scalia etc are political pawns for the Right Wing.
But that's ok, those decrepit Fascist losers will only last so much longer.

Posted by: captainkona | January 23, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I don't care how much anyone spends. As an intelligent voter I will do the research, review the candidates history and platforms and vote my conscience. I realize that members of Congress and others who run for elected office may wish to sell their votes. In that case, I won't vote for them. If they don't have the integrity or capacity to stick to righteous convictions perhaps they should find another line of work. Why does every politician think we are idiots unable to protect ourselves?

Posted by: Inquisitive1 | January 23, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

The truth is that Obama is the president who will do what he says while he is in the White House. Just watch!

Posted by: dummy4peace | January 23, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Democrats hate and revile this ruling not because it is undemocratic, but SOLELY because it reduces the systemic advantage they have engineered and gerrymandered into the election process over the years.

They have relied on these advantages for so long that they feel entitled to them, which is in keeping with the party of entitlement, but has nothing to do with preserving democracy. To the contrary, the bigger government gets, the less of democracy remains.

This ruling brings private political action closer to a par with the actions of big government, e,g, recall the $60+Million in contributions the SEIU donated to Obama in 2008, the literal takeover of government in California by public employee unions , etc., etc., etc.

For social democrats, any power not concentrated in government serves to balance power concentrated in government and, therefore, must be decried as evil. So, of course, they will battle to regain their political advantage forever. They can't control government and our lives without it.

Posted by: RUKidding0 | January 23, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

""Says the guy who turned down federal matching funds in the last election so he could rake in an unlimited amount of cash and not have to report who or where it came from. Posted by: 0460""

That sums up everything and should be posted every 30 minutes. Obama set a record for contributions and refuses to release where that money came from despite numerous requests. Did that money come illegally from corporations or George Soros? At least with this legislation, people are forced to disclose the source of funding. That is real transparency, not the kind of transparency we've seen from Obama. If Obama took matching funds in the 2008 election or released his contributor list, his outrage wouldn't sound so phony. People are really gullible to fall for his constant populist (& hypocritical) rhetoric.

Posted by: Tostitos | January 23, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

The term is Fascism for all you Obama haters.

Obama took the finance route because the GOP already has the Swift Boat liars and supporters like other racist or really dumb conservatives who don't know Fascism from Socialism.

Well, we are a constitutional republic and freedom of speech is a right of the individual, not corporations who already sold you brainless conservatives on high medical COSTS.

Conservatives are the ones who opposed the constitution and America and today we call the Tories, Republicans.

America is a LIBERAL nation, not a corporate nation until Republicans started deregulation and created the INCOME TAX.

Conservatives shout SOCIALISM.

Well, you idiots, this supreme court ruling is 100% Fascism, what conservative capitalist drool for.


From now on, the Justices should place pictures of Mussolini and Hitler on the walls and wear swastikas!

The Nazis have won. How soon we forget that Nazi Germany was a Capitalist Dream and now, with the help of the SS Supreme Court, so is America!!!

We the Corporations of the United States of America, in Order to form a more Profitable Union, establish our brand of corporate justice, insure domestic tranquility by making workers so overworked there is no time nor energy to threaten Tranquility, provide for the uncommonly profitable defense wherein we pay our soldiers slave labor, promote the Welfare of those that can afford it, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves, the RICH, and our WEALTHY children, do ordain and establish, with payola to the Supreme Court, this Constitution for the Wealthiest of the United States of America.

Side Bar: Your Tea Parties were laced with methanol and the brain damage shows. The more intelligent a person, the more they vote LIBERAL which is American and so is Christianity. Amazingly, the smarter you are the braver you are too, like those liberals, Jefferson, Madison , Henry, Washington, Adams, Franklin....you know, LIBERALS!

Posted by: nacirema | January 23, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

By Michael A. Fletcher
President Obama continued to assail the Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate spending in political campaigns, saying Saturday that the ruling "strikes at our democracy itself."
==================================

LOL! What democracy?!? The President thinks America is a democracy.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | January 23, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"Says the guy who turned down federal matching funds in the last election so he could rake in an unlimited amount of cash and not have to report who or where it came from.

Posted by: 0460"

I couldn't have said it better myself. The audacity of hypocrisy.

Posted by: GRILLADES | January 23, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Why would the President, a former law professor, oppose a Supreme Court decision on a matter of constitutional law and not respect the authority of the Court and honor our system of separation of powers?

Only one year ago, President Obama raised his hand and swore the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Posted by: prosecutor1 | January 23, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

[ Source: ldrlongdistancerider[dot]com/06 ]

LABELS

"Democrat", "Republican",
The parties of the system;
Puppets both, for sale their votes,
No character or wisdom.

"Liberal", "Conservative",
For change or status quo?
Pick either one, the change is none,
For charlatans are both.

Far "Left" we place the Anarchists,
Libertarians claim far "Right";
Yet both decry the government:
False continuum brought to light.

For oil, "We" bomb their mud huts,
Strip them bare, then offer "Aid";
And fake their retribution as
Pretext--a false flag raised.

Unarmed hundred thousands killed
By weapons of "Defense",
While rights are lost for "Freedom" sake--
On profit, all depends.

With stroke of pen, the "Patriot" Act,
And patriots' gifts are taken;
Then "Citizens United" leaves
Our citizens forsaken.

We protest loss of liberties,
Put "World Wide Web" to use;
Cloudmark Authority censors us
For "messaging abuse".

They label us to finger-point,
With labels, "They" deride us;
Their labels keep us all at bay,
For with labels, "They" divide us.

--a poem of protest by Bruce Arnold

Posted by: ironboltbruce | January 23, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I for one believe that Supreme Court is no longer a legitimate institution and the public should ignore all laws and demand real freedom, not a fake one that we have had for the past 200 or so years. The founding fathers were acting on part of the economic elite and cleverly devised a system of control that firmly rested in the hands of the wealthy.

The public should disregard any law passed by this institution that is not representative of the public, including U.S. Congress. This body should be derided and laughed at.

Posted by: kevin1231 | January 23, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

So it would be alright with you if I raped and killed your wife, daughter or sister??? After all WHY CONFORM??? Go back down into your parents basement and smoke some more weed. Every thing will be alright. If you're still concerned then just don't turn on the evil TV and you won't see the evil corp. sponsored TV ads. LOL Oh and by the way it's Saturday, just in case you forgot.

Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Notice all the wingnuts who have to divert attention to Obama in these posts because they can't look this decision square in the eye and recognize what a blow to liberty and democracy, to even their professed ideals of liberty and democracy, these Republican-appointed Justices have delivered in an act of extreme judicial overreach, a.k.a. "legislating from the bench."

Take note, all you on the right, of those of your supposed champions, in congress, on the air, and on the Net, who are cheering this decision. Now is when they are showing you their true colors. This is the moment you need to remember the next time they try to lead you down the corporate-profit path with sweet sounds of "country first," "family values" and psuedo-libertarianism.

Posted by: washpost29 | January 23, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

So let's examine the decision. The ruling allows corps. to spend as much as they wish on advertizing FREE SPEECH. A victory for free speech not a blow. Unless you are trying to silence someone. Corporate donations are still limited and are required to be disclosed. Anyone that uses the phrase legislate from the bench is simply an id10t. The US Congress (comprised mainly of attorneys) writes law. ALL LAWS must meet the requirements of the US Constitution. If the law fails to meet the requirement then it is stricken from the books. That's the way our founding fathers designed the system to work. So the failure lies with the US Congress who passed a bill deemed unlawful. So it's a win/win. Congress can write a bill and try to pass it into law to limit the amount of involvement corporations are allowed to play in campaign election advertisements that meets the requirements of the US Constitution. There's nothing preventing them from acting. This is the Gov. doing it's job. Unemployment is over 10% and people are desperately looking for work. This proves that these so called evil corporations are the center of the economic model the US is built on. But feel free to quit in protest. That'll show them. After all if you're taking a pay check from them then you are just as guilty. Here's to FREEDOM and CAPITALISM!!!!!!!!

Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I for one believe that Supreme Court is no longer a legitimate institution and the public should ignore all laws and demand real freedom, not a fake one that we have had for the past 200 or so years. The founding fathers were acting on part of the economic elite and cleverly devised a system of control that firmly rested in the hands of the wealthy.

The public should disregard any law passed by this institution that is not representative of the public, including U.S. Congress. This body should be derided and laughed at.

Posted by: kevin1231 | January 23, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

There has been a lot of commentators claiming that the Supreme court is making laws. It's obvious that they know little of how this government works.

The supreme court did what it is chartered to do, that is to interpret the constitution! The dissenters, all liberal judges who are not supporters nor believers of the constitution, disagreed.

Corporations are owned by individuals as a collective and have the power to vote for the members of the corporate board. Therefore political donations that are provided are done so at the approval of the majority owners. So the supreme court decision was a correct interpretation of the first amendment.

Besides this decision, PAC donations also are accumulated from employees and donated to specified politicians. This has been done prior to this decision and was deemed free speech. So what is the difference.

The corporations have a duty to the share holders, that is individual owners, to assure the growth of the profits of that corporation. That is why they are in business. When politicians interfere with the corporations to defeat or prevent the corporations from fulfilling their duty to their owners, they are entitled to support any candidate that supports their endeavor.

Posted by: captain3292 | January 23, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Re-read the 1st Amendment, and tell me where it distinguishes between corporations, groups, individuals, etc. PEOPLE DON'T GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT to Free speech just because they engage in their right to peaceably assemble into a group (union, nonprofit, corporation, religion, etc). The 1st Amendment restricts Congress from making a law to restrict speech - period. Good ruling and long overdue. It comes as no surprise that Obama opposes free speech.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | January 23, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Obviously we need a constitutional amendment to clarify that corporations do not enjoy all the rights of the natural person outside their marketplace.

In particular, it should clarify that corporations have no free speech rights in elections (consistent with the fact that they have no vote).

Posted by: ephemerella | January 23, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Notice all the wingnuts who have to divert attention to Obama in these posts because they can't look this decision square in the eye and recognize what a blow to liberty and democracy, to even their professed ideals of liberty and democracy, these Republican-appointed Justices have delivered in an act of extreme judicial overreach, a.k.a. "legislating from the bench."

Take note, all you on the right, of those of your supposed champions, in congress, on the air, and on the Net, who are cheering this decision. Now is when they are showing you their true colors. This is the moment you need to remember the next time they try to lead you down the corporate-profit path with sweet sounds of "country first," "family values" and psuedo-libertarianism.

Posted by: washpost29 | January 23, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

It's bad enough when this Huey Long / Willie Stark wannabe, walks around the Halls of Congress, like a petulant little child.

Let's see, the Demoncrats control the House of Representin', the Senate and King Obummer.

Hmmm.., Now he wants to play Lincoln and FDR by controlling the Supreme Court.

What it becoming obvious is that we have a petulant little child who is a wannabe dictator.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | January 23, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Activist judges are just fine when they serve the republicans schemes. Just like the police can do no wrong until they arrest you. The clear goal of the right wing is to stall all initiatives Obama may propose. First by leaving the country a shambles. Second by blunt opposition. Third by judicial decree.

Posted by: caryfnp | January 23, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Activist judges are just fine when they serve the republicans schemes. Just like the police can do no wrong until they arrest you. The clear goal of the right wing is to stall all initiatives Obama may propose. First by leaving the country a shambles. Second by blunt opposition. Third by judicial decree.

Posted by: caryfnp | January 23, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

McCain- Feingold was used to prohibit the showing of a political documentary. If it had been a book instead of a film that was banned, would that change the opinion of liberals? Never has the government in this country been empowered by any law to ban books. Any law that gives the government that power is clearly unconstitutional- or the First Amendment has no meaning at all. The Supreme Court reached the correct decision. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." No law means no law.

Posted by: mhr614 | January 23, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

So our president is opposed to the "special interests"?
Isn't that why he is president today? I'm waiting to hear from this president on just who financed his presidential campaign !
As I recall, he had a huge backing from "special interests" in his presidential campaign. He had more $'s than his opponents...so we can't have another party backing the next presidential campaign, can we?

Posted by: SeniorVet | January 23, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I wish it were true that Obama is listening. The middle class wouldn't be dying even faster under his watch than we did before and I know he inherited a horrible mess. Still he hasn't done what he should have/could have done--he's made it worse.

Hopefully, the source of funding for any ad will still have to disclosed and special legislation may need to be enacted so dummy organizations cannot be used to hide corporate sponsorship. Should we be bombarded with lies directly coming from the corporate world rather than through our politicians that would be good to know.

Yes, attempted character assassinations will increase but that can be squelched by disclosure before a candidate is elected. With the internet the truth is getting more difficult to hide and our demands for greater honesty constantly grow stronger.

We'll have to see what happens. If abuses are demonstrated, personally, I'll boycott those corporations/industries and become more supportive of the politicians they target.

Call me an idealist, but I believe there is power in openness and truth, and I believe we Americans are smarter than we're given credit.

Posted by: jabsemp | January 23, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

The four guys on the left are as bad as the four on the right. No difference. Kennedy to me is the only legitimate Justice that represents a clear view on the law without regard to politics. He demonstrates wisdom and integrity.

Posted by: hz9604 | January 23, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court ruling now makes it possible for foreign corporations -- owned by God knows who! -- to buy our government. Everyone should read this column by a Marine Corps veteran:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/22/call-for-immediate-arrest-of-5-supreme-court-justices-for-treason/

This is scary stuff!

Posted by: Kathy8 | January 23, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I have said it before and I will say it again:

If Supreme Court Justices require only a simple majority (51%) for approval, then the Court will continue to be dominated by politics and ideology.

Change that vote to a super majority (60% or even 67%), and you will get justices who will rule freer of ideology and closer to the Constitution and interpretation of the law.

Posted by: hz9604 | January 23, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Thanks askgees: unfortunately the more that the mass of "conservatives" are hurting the more they will blame it on the democrats, and vice versa..

But they are ignoring the fact that all our wealth is being funneled into the hands of the uber wealthy, through corporate entities. That corporate interests then wield their power, almost like a fourth branch of government, to ensure they may legally continue to do so.

Maybe "conservatives", for whatever reason, actually want a giant class division in our country...? With a small percentage of extremely rich individuals and the rest struggling?

Do they believe that kind of system will give them a chance to get their "piece of the pie"? I don't think they realize that they are destined to be part of the struggling class.

They forget that corporations do not have consciences, there is no such thing as business "ethics", they exist foe the sole purpose of generating wealth for their executives.

And corporations will use their media influence (as they already are) to ensure that "conservatives" continue to view the problem as an ideological/political problem, and continue to blame democrats. And continue voting against "socialists" who want to put place boundaries on this power that corporations are building.

And all the while the wealth keeps getting funneled upward. Oh well...

How the NeoCon Rich conquered America:

1. Reagan - Cut income tax for rich from 70% to 28%, doubling the National Debt in 6 years, creating more debt than the 39 presidents before him combined. "Debt doesn't matter" he convinced Americans. Subtext was to destroy the Federal government with massive debt so the rich can rule.

2. Talk radio - A 24/7 NeoCon propaganda machine.

3. Fox News - In 1986 the NeoCons launched their own TV and news network with the propaganda motto, "Fair and Balanced."

4. Supreme Court - Republican controlled, by a 5-4 vote, declares Bush the presidential winner over Gore under the theory, “we must meet the date for transition of power, counting the votes of the people to find out who actually won is not important.”

5. Bush - Lying America into the war on Iraq for oil. Doubled the National Debt, again. By the end of Bush’s presidency, he, his father, and Ronald Reagan had created $9 trillion of America’s $11 trillion debt.

6. Neocon Rich - move most of America’s jobs overseas to increase profits, creating massive, permanent unemployment across America.

7. Supreme Court - Republican controlled, by a 5-4 vote, decides corporations are people so they may spend unlimited amounts to corrupt elections.

Posted by: fromtheboulevards | January 23, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

So our president is opposed to the "special interests"?
Isn't that why he is president today? I'm waiting to hear from this president on just who financed his presidential campaign !
As I recall, he had a huge backing from "special interests" in his presidential campaign. He had more $'s than his opponents...so we can't have another party backing the next presidential campaign, can we?

Posted by: SeniorVet | January 23, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

And who is surprised by this decision? This court is made up of four judges, four Republican minions and coloring book toting Clarence Thomas, also appointed by a Republican.

Our court system is broken from top to bottom with all these incompetent, unqualified right-wing ideologues appointed by the last three Republican Presidents and rubber stamped by Congress. Most of Bill Clinton's nominees were stonewalled singlehandedly by Jesse Helms who must be laughing his ass off in hell with a Republican prepared to take Teddy Kennedy's seat in the Senate.

Posted by: BigTrees | January 23, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Okay so now we need a new rule, If corporations or unions want to run an ad pro or con they must have 100 percent backing from all employees and share holders and members, if even one says no they can not run an ad. If they are to be treated as a "person" then all must become one.

Posted by: rl5614 | January 23, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

JUST WORDS FROM OBAMA , AS USUAL AND NOTHING CONCRETE TO OFFER. ONE WAY TO NEUTRALIZE THIS LEGALIZATION OF BRIBERY IS FORCE THE CORPORATE MEDIA TO FREE POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT AFTER ALL THEY ARE THE ONES TO GET RICHER WITH THIS INSANE AND ANTIDEMOCRATIC COURT DECISION. WE HAD A HALF COOKED DEMOCRACY BEFORE AND NOW WE HAVE NOTHING.

Posted by: bluelagoon21 | January 23, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

We need Teddy Rooselvelt but unfortunately we have many Corporatists who who protect the intertests of corporations while the regular people get the shaft once again. So the message of the Supreme Court is:

If you have money, you have a voice. If you do not have money, you have no voice.

Posted by: dwdave67 | January 23, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

The faster Obama and his "trusted advisor", Mrs. Clinton, whom DOJ supported in this lawsuit, are replaced, the less destruction the democratic party would be to endure.

Posted by: aepelbaum | January 23, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

askgees: The 1886 ruling you're questioning is not the subject of the litigation here, so you, in fact are incorrect not the original poster.

The 1886 ruling, often argued as related to the abolition of slavery, is widely understood in the legal community as the decision that paved the way for widespread corporate dominance in the US. In fact, corporations were considered to be "people" before African-American US citizens were. Corporate personhood ensures that corporations have a right to free speech (pharma can advertise its drugs directly to you), rights against self-incrimination (they don't have to admit if they've committed crimes), unreasonable search and seizure (OSHA can't come in to randomly inspect businesses for violations which can endanger workers), and equal treatment under local laws (states can't discriminate against large corporate dominance in the local marketplace which often drives out local businesses). If it weren't for the personhood ruling, then lobbying would be less prevalent (if in existence at all) and the recent SCOTUS ruling would not exist.

Unless you are a lawyer or legal historian, you shouldn't comment on the subject matter as it pertains to law, because then it is you who doesn't know what you're talking about.

Posted by: BestLeeha | January 23, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

This comedy, which Obama is now starring in, is not convincing to anybody. Obama betrayed those uncountable people, who gave him their, maybe, last money over Internet, hoping that he would deliver on his promises, while he-himself had no intentions to. This man and his "trusted advisor"-Mrs. Clinton, whom DOJ supported in this lawsuit, should be replaced. The faster it happen, the less destruction the democratic party would be forced to endure.

Posted by: aepelbaum | January 23, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Barry the incompetent boob Obama should stick to his own branch of our government. The executive branch is a mess and this headless chicken in the White House has been a disaster. Barry is doing a bang up job of destroying American business now he wants to tank our financial system as well.

Miserable failure Obama.

Posted by: screwjob2 | January 23, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Five men in robes destroyed what hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform died to defend, namely democracy in America. What a colossal American tragedy.

Posted by: Spiritof761 | January 23, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest," he said.
-----------
I can. It's name is Obama.

Posted by: lbennatt | January 23, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The statements from Obama are laughable. Under the system which existed before the Supreme Court opened the floodgate for corporate spending on elections our country was already run by "special interests and lobbyists". The rich and powerful completely run the US. Obama was elected by them. What will change? The system will become more honest. Corporations, Unions, etc. will not have to contribute money to campaigns through the back door. They can spend openly. That will stimulate the economy. Billions more dollars will be spend on political campaigns. Obama is popular with many of the groups who will benefit from this ruling. His supporters in the Military Industrial complex will continue to make big money from his wars. Hey Hey Obama how many kids have you killed today?

Posted by: jimeglrd8 | January 23, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

No mere law is going to help. It has to be in the constitution to stop the corporate takeover. (Same applies to restrictions on banks, look how those laws put in place during the 1930's have gradually been eliminated.) Besides, the current SC will just strike it down.

HOWEVER, President Obama COULD appoint SIX NEW JUDGES TO THE COURT! There is no specific limit on the number of SC judges.

Posted by: dotellen | January 23, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I am pretty sure by now most of us are very very upset with this ruling and those who aren't must have a hidden agenda!

HOWEVER WE AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE COULD BEAT OUT THIS RADICAL RULING BY MAKING SURE TO TURN OUT AND VOTE AND PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE POLITICIAN THAT IS NOT WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE OF THAT DISTRICT BUT OF ENRON OR HALLIBURTON....

THE SOUTH IS STILL FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR AND YOU BEST BELIEVE THIS WAS A PERSAUSIVE VOTE....BY THE BACKWOOD SHED OF CHENEY AND SCALIA WONDERING HOW THEY COULD DO IT

HECK DON'T YOU KNOW IT WAS CHENEY FEAR THAT MADE SCALIA GRANTED RIGHTS TO BEAR ARRS OPENLY...

SEE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WANT TO PLAY GHANDI IN A BUCKWILD COUNTRY AND ALL THAT FLOWERCHILD STUFF ABOUT NOT LOOKING BACK BUT GOING FORWARD

AXEROD GOT TO GO!!!!

AXEROD GOT TO GO

AXEROD GOT TO GO

Posted by: dove369 | January 23, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I am pretty sure by now most of us are very very upset with this ruling and those who aren't must have a hidden agenda!

HOWEVER WE AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE COULD BEAT OUT THIS RADICAL RULING BY MAKING SURE TO TURN OUT AND VOTE AND PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE POLITICIAN THAT IS NOT WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE OF THAT DISTRICT BUT OF ENRON OR HALLIBURTON....

THE SOUTH IS STILL FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR AND YOU BEST BELIEVE THIS WAS A PERSAUSIVE VOTE....BY THE BACKWOOD SHED OF CHENEY AND SCALIA WONDERING HOW THEY COULD DO IT

HECK DON'T YOU KNOW IT WAS CHENEY FEAR THAT MADE SCALIA GRANTED RIGHTS TO BEAR ARRS OPENLY...

SEE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WANT TO PLAY GHANDI IN A BUCKWILD COUNTRY AND ALL THAT FLOWERCHILD STUFF ABOUT NOT LOOKING BACK BUT GOING FORWARD

AXEROD GOT TO GO!!!!

AXEROD GOT TO GO

AXEROD GOT TO GO

Posted by: dove369 | January 23, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

He gave authority 'in his name' of the banking solution to friends from school.
We are back.
He gave authority 'in his name' of his healthcare bill to Nancy & Reid.
We are nowhere.
Macbeth has similar troubles.

Posted by: RayOne | January 23, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

THE SUPREME ADDRESS

In the days when a buck was a buck, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Times change, and men deteriorate. Now we are engaged in a great corporate raid on the Federal Treasury, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, should long endure. We are here met on the great trading floor of that global financial market. We have come to elevate a portion of that Wall Street, and to establish a corporate identity more equal than men, such that the few may prosper over the many. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this, especially when you're that many trillions in the hole.

But, in a larger sense, we can not eradicate...we can not remunerate...we can not write off this debt. Those brave investment banks, failing or failed, who struggled here, have already trashed it, far above our poor power to even understand it. The citizenry will little note, nor long remember what we say here, and the media are not likely to report what they did there. It is for us the Supreme Court, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who illegally traded here have thus far so selfishly advanced. It is for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these craven Wall Street traitors we take increased promotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of greedy self devotion—that we here highly resolve that these banks shall not have been "too big to fail"—that this nation, under plutocracy, shall enjoy a new birth of power— that government: of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation, shall evermore order the earth

Posted by: foundrysmith | January 23, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"As long as I'm your President, I'll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you," he said.

Right. Like he and his elitest congressional cronies have been listening for the past year, as they wasted a year, damaged Americans further, and drove the debt to incredible heights. Does anyone remember Rahm's statement, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste?" Where has Obama been on private sector jobs all this time? This guy has an agenda that is not shared by Americans who want to get up every morning, go to work and keep their self-respect.

Effete President Obama, wrapped in a mantle of populism, has the same effect on me as Conan O'Brien in a Speedo. Laughable.

Posted by: suzehanktn | January 23, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

The Court got it wrong, wrong, wrong. This is to be a government of,by and for the people....one person and one vote. This decision gives the moneyed corporations and organizations and their members more than one vote per person. I do not believe in censorship, but the activists on the Court fell so deeply into that argument that they lost sight of the reasons our founding fathers stressed the importance of the people.

I tend to agree with others who have posted here that both political parties are part of a sick system that begs for remedies. Perhaps the greatest way to limit corporate/special interests influences from targeting individual legislators who fear risking re-election is to go back to the drawing board for term limits and limits on after-office employment...a Senator or Representative who never will face re-election and who has signed a contract of office that forbids employment (directly or indirectly) with donors, can really vote for the best interests of constituents in their states/districts, and for the country as a whole. Yes, I know all the arguments against that suggestion, but the Court leaves only extreme choices in order to repair their blundering decision.

Posted by: cheq2010 | January 23, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

magnifco1000 ~ not to worry. There are a couple of very important factors here that you must first deal with.

(1) The United States is a multi-ethnic/multi-racial society. Virtually all the states against which you are comparing US life expectancy are quite homogenous ~ and mostly "white" and mostly "European". You control for that factor and compare only "white" Americans of European ancestry against "white" Europeans of European ancestry and lo and behold, specific ethnic groups compared to each other in Europe and America have pretty much the same life span.

Go a step further and contrast Americans of African origin against Africans and South Americans of African origin. Our people live far longer!

(2) As I've pointed out to you in many other threads on many other boards, the United States keeps better records than the others regarding life expectancy AND we count all the babies ~ which virtually none of them do.
___________________________________________

Give me a break. UK and Europe are loaded now with immigrants/minorities. Walk around London. UK is wild about this. As for records, European countries probably keep better ones then we do. They have centralized systems vs. our states. Probably our life expectancy is really even lower then stats. because who knows if individual states even always report. Also, the point can be made that the poor, minorities, and lower middle class die in the USA in greater numbers because of no health care. They would live longer with a socialized system, but is that bad? That's a reason for it, isn't it? Shouldn't be just the rich get to live longer, you think?

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 23, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

asgees:

Mass. uses a private company system that they subsidize in various ways for those who are not insurable. It's very expensive to use private companies because they have to make a profit. It's not a single payer system at all. When Obama wanted a gov. plan, the insurance industry went after him, because they couldn't compete. You know why? Because it is so much cheaper. USA spending on healthcare is 16% GDP, Europe with socialized care 10%. We are wasting billions.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 23, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

In the plan he proposes and you think is best is in use in other countries. But you over look one small thing. In these countries most if not all hospitals and staff including the Dr.s and the nurses are paid for by the Governments and owned by the Government. Not so in the US. The people don't have the infrastructure in place. This is why you can implement the system you ask for. It has to be a hybrid because the medical profession in the US is privately owned. Unless of course they try using the tired old Gov. standard, the one they've push on us for over 50 years. SUBSIDIZE!!!!! Every state in the union is in dire trouble. Cailf. has to close a 22 billion dollar budget short fall. Every thing is getting cut. Education in the US has dropped to some where in the upper 20's Do you think FED/ST run healthcare could survive or for that exist?? Truthfully, tell me. The US Post office lost 6 billion last year???

Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I was surpised by this decision. So I looked into the context of how this came about:
This is all stemming from Michael Moore's 911 farenheit. People who work in corporations (you know, the ones that employ so many people?)joined and created a non profit. Not unlike Moveon.org. They made a movie about Hilary Clinton, but a court shut them down and argued it was political, so it wasn't allowed to be released. (The same kind of decision that democrats are now blaming the Supreme Court with.) Well, it went to the Supreme Court.
Obama's attorney testified this past year explaining with precedence that a movie "tainted" such as this is not permissable. When the Justices asked him if this movie was a book, would they still want it banned? Get this....BO's attorney said YES. Case closed. The justices, in defense of the the 1st Amendment, voted not only that this movie could be released, but judged that Corporations could, like Unions, contribute to politcal parties. Turns out, precedence DOES matter, and to be consistent, discrimination is illegal, no matter what you are discriminating against. This is America!
Thank you Thomas Jefferson.

Posted by: factsmatter1 | January 23, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

NewThoughts ~ I do trust USSC to protect my property more than I trust you.

My "stuff" is of great and significant interest to me. Your "stuff" is too. I think I will come over and grab me some of your "stuff".

Who ya' gonna' call, Acorn?

Gid oudda heyah

Posted by: muawiyah | January 23, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

magnifco1000 ~ forgot to add ~ back in the 1800s over half the Scandinavians in Scandinavia left for America. Their descendants are readily compared to the population left behind on the old rockpile.

Their life expectancies are the same.

At the same time the American survival rates for Cancer are better than those in Scandinavia (and you just gotta' count in Latvia, Estonia, Kola Peninsula and the Pomar people to get yourself an accurate comparison ~ if you want to take it to the nth degree, and then the USA surges ahead of the broadmasses of Scandinavians)

Posted by: muawiyah | January 23, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court has a long history of decisions supporting property over people. Just look at the repeated rulings supporting the rights of property ownership (including people) over the rights of individual citizens. Even as late as 1930’s the Supreme Court continued to rule minimum wages and prohibition of child labor or any restriction of working hours as unconstitutional. In fact, it was not until FDR tried to pack the court that a miraculous change in the rulings occurred. (Yes, the attempt failed, however any student of the Supreme Court rulings would have to acknowledge the complete change in rulings after this failed attempt). What is important in this ruling is the new right extended to non-citizen entities. The court is saying that organizations now have the same rights as individual citizens even though they don’t have the right to vote.

Looking at the past stupid and embarrassing rulings by the Supreme Court, rulings like Dred Scott, or rulings against child labor laws, the result has been new and improved legislation by congress that overcomes the courts bias. We are, perhaps, one step closer to the public financing of elections and the strict and full disclosure for any political advertizing. Sometimes the unintended consequence of stupid judicial decisions is a motivated electorate correcting the injustice.

Posted by: NewThoughts | January 23, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

magnifco1000 ~ not to worry. There are a couple of very important factors here that you must first deal with.

(1) The United States is a multi-ethnic/multi-racial society. Virtually all the states against which you are comparing US life expectancy are quite homogenous ~ and mostly "white" and mostly "European". You control for that factor and compare only "white" Americans of European ancestry against "white" Europeans of European ancestry and lo and behold, specific ethnic groups compared to each other in Europe and America have pretty much the same life span.

Go a step further and contrast Americans of African origin against Africans and South Americans of African origin. Our people live far longer!

(2) As I've pointed out to you in many other threads on many other boards, the United States keeps better records than the others regarding life expectancy AND we count all the babies ~ which virtually none of them do.

Posted by: muawiyah | January 23, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

now pay attention boy hussein - unions are corporations but you seem not to care that they contribute to the dems.
but most corporations are just a few people are most of those corporations. so it is simple.
if one type of corporation - unions - can support canidates - so can others.

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | January 23, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

"It seems there are some on the court who are looking out for the interests of Corporations, as oppose to the will of the people."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You make the common assumption, in error by the way, that many people make: That the interests of Corporations run contrary to the interests and will of the people.

Corporations don't exist autonomously. Take General Electric for example. Their are 316,000 employees that want GE to stay in business and make a profit so they can continue to work.

There are around a million stock holders each of whom want GE to profit so they can also.

If GE were to spend $100 million dollars for issue advertising, essentially they are spending $100 per shareholder. If the shareholders don't like it, the board of directors will have a different make-up in the next year. However, that would be very doubtful as GE isn't going to spend money that would be hurtful to profits, therefore, it's actions would be approved by both the board and shareholders.

There are entirely too many uneducated people running around with the belief that corporations are a bad thing. Most people that work, work for a corporation.
-------------

Corporations have and do work against the good of the people. They destroyed the Unions, the only real counterbalance against corp greed at the top, by paying law-makers and lying to the peopple that NAFTA is a good thing or trade deals with China, countries in Asia, Africa help this country when in fact they have screwed this country and now they can have an even bigger say in policy. It is another sad day for this country.

Posted by: dwdave67 | January 23, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

USA is now #38 in Life Expectancy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

I just had to Google it. Everybody with Socialized Medical Care surpasses us.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 23, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Unless we pass a national ‘Right to Work’ Law we must,
redefine unions as non-persons.

Posted by: UpAndOver | January 23, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

We need a constitution amendment reversing the 1886 decision, which would certainly pass with the majority of public votes needed, to redefine corporations as non-persons.

Strike a blow against oligarchy: rescind the "personhood" of corporations.

Posted by: dwyerj1 | January 23, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse


The law that was ruled unconstitutional was 3 years old. Next time read the data before opening the mouth.


Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I meant 63 years old

Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

And that Eisenhower warned of excessive power gained by another entity of the Corporate world, the Military/Industrial Complex which could lead to counter-productive measures in common global goals of peace and stability.

Excerpt from Eisenhower's Farewell Address:

"..In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together..."

Posted by: truthhurts | January 23, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

muawiyah:

Why does the UK have a longer life expectancy then the USA? It's also longer in most of the other European Countries with socialized medical care. Case closed.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 23, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

More lies from the left. The US life expectancy is in the top 10 countries and their all with in a point one way or they other. from approx. 77-81. And that's pretty amazing considering the US crime and stupidity rate. An issue not face in 90% of the other countries in the top 10. Case reopened.

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm

_________________________________________

UK, Sweden, all higher, why are you making my point? Also, I don't have time for it now, but go GOOGLE for some more recent stats. You will find an even wider gap.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 23, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Sorry about the "having two legs" comment, some people don't have two legs having lost them defending our Country in combat or other ways. People "are flesh and blood" is more to the point.

Posted by: glenglish | January 23, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

We need a constitution amendment reversing the 1886 decision, which would certainly pass with the majority of public votes needed, to redefine corporations as non-persons.

Strike a blow against oligarchy: rescind the "personhood" of corporations.

Posted by: dwyerj1 | January 23, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

The law that was ruled unconstitutional was 3 years old. Next time read the data before opening the mouth.

Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

A little ironic...or, should I say hypocritical since the president took lots of money from Wall Street and other financial industry donors when he was campaigning. Don't think so? Follow the money trail and wake up, America. These are the frauds we elect.

Posted by: sero1 | January 23, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Stand by for a torrent of teabagger outrage over this devastating decision by five conservative Supreme Court justices, because those teabaggers are principled and honest, right?

[crickets]

Posted by: losthorizon10 | January 23, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

The H in BHO must be changed to C. BCO: Barack Compromise Obama.

Posted by: dwyerj1 | January 23, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

muawiyah:

Why does the UK have a longer life expectancy then the USA? It's also longer in most of the other European Countries with socialized medical care. Case closed.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 23, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

More lies from the left. The US life expectancy is in the top 10 countries and their all with in a point one way or they other. from approx. 77-81. And that's pretty amazing considering the US crime and stupidity rate. An issue not face in 90% of the other countries in the top 10. Case reopened.

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm

Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

We need a constitution amendment reversing the 1886 decision, which would certainly pass with the majority of public votes needed, to redefine corporations as non-persons.

Strike a blow against oligarchy: rescind the "personhood" of corporations.

Posted by: dwyerj1 | January 23, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

asgees:

Mass. uses a private company system that they subsidize in various ways for those who are not insurable. It's very expensive to use private companies because they have to make a profit. It's not a single payer system at all. When Obama wanted a gov. plan, the insurance industry went after him, because they couldn't compete. You know why? Because it is so much cheaper. USA spending on healthcare is 16% GDP, Europe with socialized care 10%. We are wasting billions.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 23, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Somewhere in the Constitution there should be an amendment that defines a human being as something with two legs and born from a female human being's womb: 46 chromosomes; able to communicate; and not something written on a piece of paper. And that is the only kind of entity that can have rights to monetarilly influence elections of public officials.

The Constitution at one time defined slaves as 3 5ths human but not paper. How can anyone define a piece of paper as "human enough to have rights" let alone the five judges who decided the ruling in this way? Pretty soon they'll be declaring that all paper has "rights" and you may be arrested for assault, battery and murder by drowning just for wiping yourself after a dump.

Posted by: glenglish | January 23, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Dear President Obama. Remember you can use signing statements to override the Constitution. I guess George didn't tell you. If something isn't done to prevent giant profit making corporations from dumping billions into advertising and campaigns, considering how uninformed most people become in our "infotainment" society, we will fall prey to the whims of wealth and greed. This will no longer be a government by and for the people. If corporations have the same rights, in fact, their rights exceed individual rights, we will have to change the name of this country to the Corporation of the United States. Corporate charters are to make a profit, nothing more. And people, we can have corporate charters revoked. Look into it. Just Google away and learn how to revoke corporate charters. There are plenty of unemployed to help you.

Posted by: clairevb | January 23, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

It's terrible for the president that individuals can now pool their money and freely call him out. Isn't freedom just awful?

Posted by: HookInMouth | January 23, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Somewhere in the Constitution there should be an amendment that defines a human being as something with two legs and born from a female human being's womb: 46 chromosomes; able to communicate; and not something written on a piece of paper. And that is the only kind of entity that can have rights to monetarilly influence elections of public officials.

The Constitution at one time defined slaves as 3 5ths human but not paper. How can anyone define a piece of paper as "human enough to have rights" let alone the five judges who decided the ruling in this way? Pretty soon they'll be declaring that all paper has "rights" and you may be arrested for assault, battery and murder by drowning just for wiping yourself after a dump.

Posted by: glenglish | January 23, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

The easiest solution has always been to just expand Medicare. 4% overhead vs. 20% or more in the private sector. That's why every modern country in the world, except America, mostly uses a single payer system. It works, and that's proven. A so-called "free market" solution to health care doesn't exist.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 23, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Yes it worked so well in Massachusetts that they elected a Republican this week. More lies and misconceptions from the left. LOL

Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Either BHO was not paying attention, or Harvard Law School does not teach the Constitution. Bill of Rights #1 says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Or perhaps BHO and the Democrats just chooses to ingnore the Constitution.

Posted by: MikeN3 | January 23, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

muawiyah:

Why does the UK have a longer life expectancy then the USA? It's also longer in most of the other European Countries with socialized medical care. Case closed.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 23, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Hawaiian_Gecko: Your arguments may be good but still fallible.

For example, is not G.E. the parent company of NBC which just shot itself in the foot by having to severance Conan to put Leno back in the late night spot ? See the Corporation did not care about the public, ie. Conan fans. The bottom-line is profit.

Point of order, small business employs most of America, not corporations:

Excerpt from Andrew Jackson's farewell address, March 4, 1837:

"...It is one of the serious evils of our present system of banking that it enables one class of society--and that by no means a numerous one--by its control over the currency, to act injuriously upon the interests of all the others and to exercise more than its just proportion of influence in political affairs..."

Posted by: truthhurts | January 23, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Why should corp that owns WaPo have free speech right but not corp that owns Hillary the Movie??

Posted by: Schwabcycler | January 23, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

magnifco100 ~ civilized medical system can cure cancer, or so fully treat it that its ravages are substantially reduced.

The other medical systems you are talking about have LOW cancer survivability rates by American standards.

Here's how you can give yourself the same level of medical coverage you'd find in United Kingdom. Get cancer and die.

End of story.

You can't compare apples and rocks in the road.

Posted by: muawiyah | January 23, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

masondickme ~ you missed that part where Jefferson was concerned with the loss of property, and with that, the rights of the former owners.

That's the case here. The USSC has finally noticed that my right to free speech is severely abridged if I cannot speak through and on behalf of my possessions ~ that is, my property.

Seems to me the USSC returned to a position in agreement with that of Jefferson.

Frankly, Leftwingtards are the only ones demanding that the people not be allowed to speak for and through their property. Accordingly, it be only fair to deprive Leftwingtards of their property!

Posted by: muawiyah | January 23, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The easiest solution has always been to just expand Medicare. 4% overhead vs. 20% or more in the private sector. That's why every modern country in the world, except America, mostly uses a single payer system. It works, and that's proven. A so-called "free market" solution to health care doesn't exist.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 23, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

There are posters claiming that Obama is hampered by the Constitution. George Bush didn't find the Constitution to be an obstacle...he just wrote signing statements to override it. Anyone think that when our government passed the Patriot Act that it was constitutional? Homeland Security? Spying on Americans and American organizations? I didn't hear too much fuss about those things. Welcome to the Corporation of the United States. Get your tattoo in this line. When I retire, it will be far away from this fascist country.

Posted by: clairevb | January 23, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Spoken like a true "Progressive" Obama sees Statism as the path America should take. Who needs that pesky old Constitution, it just gets in the way. Remember it doesn't say what it will do for you only what the government can't do, it's so frustrating to progressive liberals.

Posted by: ric545Riker | January 23, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Rule one in our society is that unless a consensus of people agree upon a common interest, like health insurance reform, private interests will reform the system in a manner that suits their self interests. That's why non-profit hospitals across the country are forming vertically integrated and in some cases regional monopolies to deliver health care services from your first doctor office visit until you go home, to long term care, or to a funeral home. Insurance companies are cutting their costs mandating that if patients don't go to rehabilitation in less expensive facilities, they loose disability insurance etc. Its not to say these and many more "reforms" already being practiced in the private sector are bad, its just that who makes the decisions and who benefits? We don't have to pass laws for our health care to change, its changing under our noses every day anyway.

Posted by: tigman_2 | January 23, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Corporations exist as a product of corporate law, and their rules balance the interests of the management who operate the corporation; creditors who loan it goods, services or money; shareholders who invest their capital; the employees who contribute their labor; and the clients they serve.
========
As you said "Corporations exist as a product of corporate law," and that is the key difference. No law is required to make a person's existence. For example, the 2nd amendment establishes the right of the people (person) to keep and bear arms. No such right can be confered on a person that only exists as a matter of law. Thus corporations, as persons under law only, do not have the right to bear arms, nor do corporations have to right to vote in an election. Only individuals (persons) within the corporation have those rights, and those rights are separable and distinguishable from those of the corporation.

Posted by: Frazil | January 23, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

How did Obama raise 800 million? By the internet idiot republicans. By INDIVIDUALS, who gave five dollars, fifty dollars...whatever amount. Obama ran the most successful campaign every because HE USED THE INTERNET. He got his money from INDIVIDUALS, not CORPORATIONS like Bush did. Idiots.

Posted by: kubrickstan | January 23, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

If corporations are allowed to fund political campaigns then they should have to dress like race car drivers. That way we'll at least know who their "sponsors" are.
http://www.grimmy.com/editorials.php

Posted by: SharkMan2 | January 23, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

All donations are disclosed. All you have to do is read. But that's to much like work so being the id10t you are you would make a suggestion like this. LOL

Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

What's the difference between receiving money from corporate interests and pretending to receive money from corporate interests?

Thomas Huynh, founder
Sonshi.com

Posted by: sonshi | January 23, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Once again Obama is inconvenienced by the constitution.

Posted by: thecomedian | January 23, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Listen to the revolutionary in our history:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. "
Thomas Jefferson
"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: masondickme | January 23, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Sure, Obama had a lot of campaign cash, mostly from small donations off the internet. But, now, everything has changed. The big money will now buy unlimited amounts of TV time, billboards, you name it. Look how they already collapsed health care reform with mostly nothing but lies. And, this is just for openers. Bank reform, anything that threatens the billions in profits will be attacked. As for Brown, he is just the latest creation of the big money power boys and nothing else. As for Obama, despite some compromises with big money, he is still trying to bring about reform. The fact that his popularity has sunk is proof of the real threat he is to some vested interests. Interests that control the media and public perception. I hope he hangs in there and just doesn't take the cash and the big money support. We will see.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 23, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

FLUSH.....that's the sound of the American voting system going down the toilet. The republican party is out of money. They will have a tough time raising enough cash before the November elections...PRESTO, unlimited cash from the oil companies, Wall Street, the NRA, Health Insurance industry, Problem solved. Isn't democracy wonderful!!!

Posted by: kubrickstan | January 23, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court decision is undoubtedly based on the legal fiction that a corporation is a "person."

What is needed is a constitutional amendment that reverses that bad precedent. A corporation is not a "person," but rather a 'collective' of capital.

To call a corporation a "person" is really a bad joke played on the American people.

Posted by: Marcaurelius | January 23, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Please tell me that you are not really this stup1d. Hopefully you're only gullible. Think about what you said??? now think about this. The Gov. basically the DEMS afraid that (because they claim to be) the peoples party and tend to lean more towards the left or in other words feel that us poor dumb folk are not capable of taking care of our self's. So they need to do for us what we're not able to do. LOL Hence the birth of welfare and hundreds of other programs designed to control the poor and dumb for political purposes. The down side to this is, the people as I stated are poor so they really cannot offer much in the way of support other than their VOTE. But on the other side the Conservatives those that worked hard and walked a straight line we're having a hard time watching the DEMS tax them (steal their money) to pay for these programs. This complicated the issue because these people also happened to be the WEALTHY and BUSINESS OWNERS of the USA. So the DEMS had to prevent them from speaking out against the Democratic party. The Supreme Court has simply ruled that this is against the law as it violates the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. I guess the DEMS are more concerned about having an edge than they are about upholding the LAW.

Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Obama said the ruling "handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists - and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence."

Really ? What monumental audacity !!

From the most special interest driven President in history !!

Has Obama forgotten his labor, lawyer, leftist, Drug, Healthcare, Bank, Auto, Wall Street, ACORN, and billionaire buddies he has been playing with all last year ? Ok sometimes openly, sometimes in secret ?

Has this Harvard-trained Law Professor forgotten the Constitution ? the First Amendment ?

Posted by: pvilso24 | January 23, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"The winner takes it all
the loser standing small
The winner takes it all

I don't wanna talk
About the things I've done to you
It's not hurting me
Who cares about history

I've played all my cards
And now I'm through
Nothing more to say
No more ace to play
Under my plan we have to fall
It's simple and it's plain
Why should complain.
(from ABBA "The winner takes it all")

Posted by: houston123 | January 23, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Pardon my cynicism but considering that this decision is rendered in January THIS election year instead of June making the infusion of corporate money into THIS year's election cycle makes the two week premature oral arguments in September seem a bit premeditated doesn't it?
I believe the true meaning of "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" has bypassed GOP rhetoric and become firmly ensconced in the record of the Robert's court.

Posted by: tigman_2 | January 23, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Says the guy who turned down federal matching funds in the last election so he could rake in an unlimited amount of cash and not have to report who or where it came from.

Posted by: 0460 | January 23, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

If corporations are allowed to fund political campaigns then they should have to dress like race car drivers. That way we'll at least know who their "sponsors" are.
http://www.grimmy.com/editorials.php

Posted by: SharkMan2 | January 23, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Simply AMAZING! This clown they call Obama spends $730 million bucks on his campaign! According to this arrogant, narcissistic egoistic usurper, no one else should be able to share his privilege. Simply amazing!

Is it any wonder why his only strong supporters that are left are ex members of Das Verkers Party!

Posted by: williepete1 | January 23, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

How much do you make Mr. President, our health insurance company CEO makes $275 million a year plus perks. Collectively, our industry controls $1 trillion in assets. Other idustries, especially banks, control billions and even trillions more. You are simply no match for us. You tried to take on health care reform, so we mobilized Fox News and slaughtered you with our PR campaign. As for the American Congress, we already own most of them. So, you are no match for our power. Give it up, Mr. President, and take the cash, like Brown and the rest of them.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 23, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

You make the common assumption, in error by the way, that many people make: That the interests of Corporations run contrary to the interests and will of the people.

Corporations don't exist autonomously. Take General Electric for example. Their are 316,000 employees that want GE to stay in business and make a profit so they can continue to work.

There are around a million stock holders each of whom want GE to profit so they can also.

If GE were to spend $100 million dollars for issue advertising, essentially they are spending $100 per shareholder. If the shareholders don't like it, the board of directors will have a different make-up in the next year. However, that would be very doubtful as GE isn't going to spend money that would be hurtful to profits, therefore, it's actions would be approved by both the board and shareholders.

There are entirely too many uneducated people running around with the belief that corporations are a bad thing. Most people that work, work for a corporation.
=========
And the common error you make is conflating GE employee's and stockholder's interests with the interests of the public as a whole.

Posted by: Frazil | January 23, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

This two faced thug has no room to complain. Here is a guy who has paid off Senators, Unions AND corporations to get backing for his health scam thinks we are all blind and stupid. He met hundreds of times with representatives of corporations in the health care industry, has ex or current lobbyists around him constantly, took illegal contributions from all over the world has NOTHING to complain about. He simply knows that with a level playing field, he and his liberal cohorts are a done deal! Sux to be him!!!

Posted by: yankee11 | January 23, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Conservatism is the worst calamity this country has had to deal with in the modern era. They brought huge debt, corportaism and severe errosion of our standard of living with their trade deals (21 of the last 30 years we had Republicans at the POTUS) and Conservative economic philosophy has been the dominant onoe since 1980. So the conservatives need to go and we need to reject corporatism.

Posted by: dwdave67 | January 23, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Barry, the perpetual campainer!

Posted by: houston123 | January 23, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse


…shirt and a tie (sung to the tune of pants on the ground)...


…shirt and a tie shirt and a tie…
…walkin down Wall Street in my shirt and a tie…


…shirt and a tie shirt and a tie…
...I can’t play ball cause I’m not an athletic guy…


…shirt and a tie shirt and a tie…
…I can’t do physical labor but I sure can lie…


…shirt and a tie shirt and a tie…
…my portfolio is fat cause my accountant’s really sly…


…shirt and a tie shirt and a tie…
…I’m walkin down Wall Street in my shirt and a tie…


…shirt and a tie shirt and a tie…
…my morals are low but my income is high…


...shirt and a tie shirt and a tie…
…I’m worth one hundred of you but I can’t tell you why…


…shirt and a tie shirt and a tie…
…you can’t outsmart me so don’t even try…
…cause if I don’t get my way I can beg and I can cry…


…shirt and a tie shirt and a tie…
…walkin down Wall Street in my shirt and a tie…


Posted by: moon-base-alpha | January 23, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

... and this is coming from a man who outspent every presidential candidate in history! Well, he knows that this ruling will not help him, so that means it's wrong. Poor Barry O. He refuses to believe that the party is over.

Posted by: georges2 | January 23, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Depression Obama Unemployment Class of 2009

Are YOU or a Family member a Victim of the Depression Obama Unemployment class of 2009?

Membership is limited to those who HAD a job when Obama tok office in January 2009, then LOST their job due to Obama’s incompetent policies and waste.

In Depression Obama there are 6 americans LOOKING for a job for every 1 job opening.

And that means 5 out of 6 americans LOOKING for a job will NOT find one. Thats why Obama lost Massachusetts and why the Dems will lose the House AND the Senate in November. And they KNOW it.

When Obama took office in January 2009, unemployment was at 7.6%

After a year of failed Obama policies and pork stimulus–and Obama got Congress to give him all the pork and waste he wanted-- the Obama Unemployment rate is 10%.

Thats an increase from 12 million unemployed when Obama took office to over 15 million Americans unemployed now.

But its worse than those numbers reflect because under Obama the number of LONG term unemployed those unemployed more than 6 months has skyrocketed. The Government reports:

“Among the unemployed, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) continued to trend up, reaching 6.1 million. In December, 4 in 10 unemployed workers were jobless for 27 weeks or longer. (See table A-9.)”

So what is Obama going to do about those unemployed more than 6 months?

Easy.

Team Obama does NOT count those unemployed more than 6 months.

See? Wasn’t that easy.......

Depression Obama–why YOU may lose YOUR job

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 23, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: sanmateo1850 |
"As long as I'm your President, I'll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you," Obama said.

========================================

Obama is speaking to his new base. The 19 percent of Americans (questionable) who identify themselves as Progressive Liberals--who have been rendered insignificant by mainstream America. Nothing Obama says from here on in can be taken as positive and should be scrutinized with extreme predjudice. Anything he tries is only for the benefit of his now fetid base.

Posted by: williepete1 | January 23, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

"It seems there are some on the court who are looking out for the interests of Corporations, as oppose to the will of the people."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You make the common assumption, in error by the way, that many people make: That the interests of Corporations run contrary to the interests and will of the people.

Corporations don't exist autonomously. Take General Electric for example. Their are 316,000 employees that want GE to stay in business and make a profit so they can continue to work.

There are around a million stock holders each of whom want GE to profit so they can also.

If GE were to spend $100 million dollars for issue advertising, essentially they are spending $100 per shareholder. If the shareholders don't like it, the board of directors will have a different make-up in the next year. However, that would be very doubtful as GE isn't going to spend money that would be hurtful to profits, therefore, it's actions would be approved by both the board and shareholders.

There are entirely too many uneducated people running around with the belief that corporations are a bad thing. Most people that work, work for a corporation.

++++

Posted by: Hawaiian_Gecko | January 23, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Wow, this makes pretty good sense to me dude! I like it.

RT
www.total-anonymity.de.tc

Posted by: clermontpc | January 23, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

What does it say about America's educational system that we need to laws limiting advertising to protect the idiotic masses? 30-second sound bytes are worthless in persuading someone who has taken the time to learn about the issues (from both sides' perspectives) and made up their own mind.

Posted by: wolfcastle | January 23, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I can not see how the U.S., My home, can keep going under this load, a band of phony know nothing community organizers.I knew it then and I know it now. And I thought the peanut farmer was the worst..Alas I was wrong, we have a new contender for the title...God help us

Posted by: SkipperT | January 23, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

The duncecaps blithering on about ACORN are ignoring the salient fact here --- if you remove corporate spending limits on campaigns, one corporation can essentially become the primary backer of a candidate and can use that corporate money and power to destroy the ability of other good candidates to put up a fair fight in the election. ACORN isn't contributing piles of cash to candidates, folks. Of course, those bringing it up don't know any better, which is why their comments don't make any sense...

So you seem to be the typical LIB T@RD. you think you're smarter than the rest and there for know better. But as usual YOU'RE WRONG and only MAKE AN @ZZ out of yourself. The Supreme Court decision simply removes the restrains ILLEGALLY applied against Corp. Unions or whom ever to limit the amount of money their allowed to spend on ADVERTISING. There are limits on donations and full disclosure laws so NO THEY CANNOT BUT A CANDIDATE. The problem with dumb@zzes like you is, you don't actually take the time to read and understand the impact of the decision but instead peruse the comment section reading posts from other LIB rubes and then make an educated (LOL) guess. This is the problem with your pathetic party. You're fu%^ing lazy and ignorant. Pay attention and you might learn something.

Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

They may as well just put Senate and House seats up for auction on eBay. Why bother to pretend this is not taking place. Our democracy is being awarded to the highest bidder. The corrupt and sleazy money game that one must go through to win an election insures that only the most corrupt and sleazy candidate is able to win. Our democracy is being destroyed from the inside by the very people who were elected to protect it. Somehow the White House, watch dog groups and public opinion must put a high level of pressure on Justice Roberts to re-examine the court's decision and over turn it. There is an inherant danger in that there is no oversight of Supreme Court decisions. They can do something that goes against the very fabric of our democracy and there seems to be no one that has any authority question it. The judges on the Supreme Court bench are appointed for life. There is no way to impeach or vote them out should it be discovered that they are corrupt or serving special interests over the people.

Posted by: mjoy | January 23, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

"As long as I'm your President, I'll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you," Obama said.

-----------------------------------------

It is funny because even if the American people's voice is the most powerful, how come the Democrats gave a tax break to Union groups in their healthcare bill? LOL!! This guy is a joke!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | January 23, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

"As long as I'm your President, I'll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you," Obama said.

-----------------------------------------

It is funny because even if the American people's voice is the most powerful, how come the Democrats gave a tax break to Union groups in their healthcare bill? LOL!! This guy is a joke!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | January 23, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

They may as well just put Senate and House seats up for auction on eBay. Why bother to pretend this is not taking place. Our democracy is being awarded to the highest bidder. The corrupt and sleazy money game that one must go through to win an election insures that only the most corrupt and sleazy candidate is able to win. Our democracy is being destroyed from the inside by the very people who were elected to protect it. Somehow the White House, watch dog groups and public opinion must put a high level of pressure on Justice Roberts to re-examine the court's decision and over turn it. There is an inherant danger in that there is no oversight of Supreme Court decisions. They can do something that goes against the very fabric of our democracy and there seems to be no one that has any authority question it. The judges on the Supreme Court bench are appointed for life. There is no way to impeach or vote them out should it be discovered that they are corrupt or serving special interests over the people.

Posted by: mjoy | January 23, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court decision is undoubtedly based on the legal fiction that a corporation is a "person."

What is needed is a constitutional amendment that reverses that bad precedent. A corporation is not a "person," but rather a 'collective' of capital.

To call a corporation a "person" is really a bad joke played on the American people.

Posted by: Marcaurelius | January 23, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

It seems there are some on the court who are looking out for the interests of Corporations, as oppose to the will of the people.

If I didn't know better, I would swear that some on the Supreme Court are misusing and abusing the Constitution to write their own laws, or overturn certain laws for the will of their rich friends, or their own political ideologies, and not for the will of the people.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are all rogue justices at the highest levels.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | January 23, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

OK, since Obama and many other politician think the Supreme Court decision is wrong, why not eliminate campaign contributions for all Americans. That way we can ensure that there will be no special interest groups or powerful individuals able to call in favors of our politicians. If our politiicans are as concerned about the protection of our democracy they will certainly agree with this. But surely I jest! LOL!!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | January 23, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Last week, the enemy was the insurance companies. This week, it's the First Amendment. Next week, it will be the banks, then oil companies, and on and on. Why does this man insist on picking fights with everybody--except those that are already in his back pocket? Apparently, those who differ with his vision (and who's to say that it isn't flawed?) don't have a say in matters. I can point to the results of three recent statewide elections that suggest otherwise.

Posted by: signof4 | January 23, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Corporations exist as a product of corporate law, and their rules balance the interests of the management who operate the corporation; creditors who loan it goods, services or money; shareholders who invest their capital; the employees who contribute their labor; and the clients they serve.

People work together in corporations to produce value and generate income. People rely on corporations for employment, pensions, goods, services, economic growth and cultural development.

An important feature of corporation is limited liability. If a corporation fails, shareholders normally only stand to lose their investment, and employees will lose their jobs, but neither will be further liable for debts that remain owing to the corporation's creditors.

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people.

Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they may be responsible for human rights violations.

Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency.

Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses.

Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter of incorporation from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347.
Many European nations chartered corporations to lead colonial ventures, such as the Dutch East India Company (born on date: 1602) or the Hudson's Bay Company (1670), both of which predate the Constitution.

Posted by: Hawaiian_Gecko | January 23, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

As a supplement to Bush vs. Gore, in which the Supreme Court assumed the power to select the president, this new decision effectively ends representative democracy in the United States. The international banking cartel controls almost everything, including most politicians. This fact is so obvious and yet so few people are awake to the reality. Most Americans don't even know that the Federal Reserve is a privately-owned bank that has never been audited by Congress, which relinquished its power to coin money to the bank in 1913. That is when the republic fell. Is it any wonder that 40 million Americans lack health insurance despite spending more on health care services per capita than any other country in the world? The United States is a representative democracy only in form, not in practice; for, corporations have seized control of the political process to advance their own interests. According to Mussolini, this is the essence of fascism.

Posted by: Aurellano | January 23, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

At the end of Barack Obama’s worst week since taking power a year ago, the US president’s fortunes look set only to deteriorate over the coming days. Following the shock defeat of the Democratic candidate in Massachusetts on Tuesday, a move that deprived the president of his 60-seat super-majority in the Senate and left his legislative agenda in tatters, Mr Obama has just four days to reboot the system.

The US president had originally delayed next week’s State of the Union address to Congress in the hope he would get his signature healthcare reform bill enacted in time. That prospect, already waning, was killed dead by the voters in Massachusetts. A growing number of Democrats believe the nine-month effort could collapse altogether.

=========================================

Obozo is a complete failure as POTUS

Posted by: charlietuna666 | January 23, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Science fiction writers often depict a futuristic United States as one of chaotic civil war, the people fighting against Corporate dictatorships. Is that really the future of our open Democracy ?

I can't really fully embrace the concept that "Corporations are people too" because for one thing, I know the lack of conscious corporations often exhibit through what Andrew Jackson referred to as "Moneyed Interests". In general, Corporations are entities legally formed through a trust with the public that for the betterment of society liabilities are limited for personal investors. In hardcore Corporatism, profits are maximized while liabilities are defeated. In the process of extremist capitalization, we have collectively witnessed an anti-trust created by corporate flunkies who burden the Public with liabilities.

Toxic waste dumping is a good example of how an unimaginable lack of conscious by the corporate mind will ruin the environment by literally dumping their liabilities in the wilderness. In the past, even if fines were paid for ruining the environment while exposing society to carcinogens, the moneyed interest was upheld as cost/benefit analysis showed toxic waste dumping to be cost effective or the bottom line: Reducing operating costs in order to maximize profits.

It's all in the timing and this timing is bizarre to me. As the United States corporate world has enabled a negative growth period for America which leads to negative growth around the world, the Supreme Court has empowered corporations to threaten our securities more now than ever so. Or perhaps, the Laws of man are imperfect and in ever need of amendment as our Forefathers had envisioned.

Posted by: truthhurts | January 23, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

This decision by the supreme court is literally insane. China could well decide the outcome of our future elections now through one or more of their puppet US corporations. I really think at least a couple of the justices are certifiably psychotic, and yet they are appointed for life.

Posted by: Jihm | January 23, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

MyTulsecoPost Wrote: The Obama haters are too blind to see that the Supreme Court has put the USA back to the Gilded Age...

-----------------------------------------

Hello!! and we are not bombarded by "Yellow Journalism" daily in support of the "Progressive" (read Socialist) movement? "Mainstream" media just lost their monopoly used to force feed the populous leftist tripe. Talks about raining in the Robber Barons, Sure seams to be the early 1900's all over again to me.
Anything that gets the "Progressives" in a twist I love. They're a bunch of pseudo intellectual jackasses that are not half as well read as they think (nothing worse than a person that thinks they're smarter that everyone else and therefore should be able to decide what is best for everyone).

Posted by: KeythL | January 23, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a first rate hypocrite.He did not comply with the provisions with McCain-Fiengold. He greedily abscounded with the the money from unions, well heeled liberal groups and Hollywood types. Thank goodness the Supreme Court is leveling the playing field.

Posted by: tsapp77 | January 23, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Obama happily spent nearly a billion dollars to get elected. He is concerned that other people might do the same.

He also can't stand the fact that he doesn't have complete control over the government, and that other people are allowed to make decisions.

Posted by: pkhenry | January 23, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Obama happily spent nearly a billion dollars to get elected. He is concerned that other people might do the same.

He also can't stand the fact that he doesn't have complete control over the government, and that other people are allowed to make decisions.

Posted by: pkhenry | January 23, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

This is a terrible thing for our democracy.

There will be a small window of opportunity to mitigate this ruling by Congressional
legislation before special interest money is effectively used to prevent such legislation.

Posted by: steveandjanereed1 | January 23, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

The duncecaps blithering on about ACORN are ignoring the salient fact here --- if you remove corporate spending limits on campaigns, one corporation can essentially become the primary backer of a candidate and can use that corporate money and power to destroy the ability of other good candidates to put up a fair fight in the election. ACORN isn't contributing piles of cash to candidates, folks. Of course, those bringing it up don't know any better, which is why their comments don't make any sense...

Posted by: chop1 | January 23, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

America as we knew it is about to cease to exist. Rich will get richer, poor will get poorer. This road ends in anarchy. The country is no longer worth fighting for.

Posted by: GeorgHerbet | January 23, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse


Has Obama ever declined a campaign contribution from any special interest group?

Campaign finance reform has always been ripe for demagogues.

Posted by: DagnyT | January 23, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

It's funny to read all these posts, republicans blaming democrats, Obama, just like democrats blamed republicans, WY2K when he was in office. Republicans blamed democrats when Clinton was in office, & none of the people as individuals from either party have the good sense to realize they are being taken by both parties.

What other party has had control in the last century? Can't very well blame independents, or was it their fault because the one or two percent of the vote they had influenced the outcome? I would bet members of both failing parties, individuals would have the lack of intelligence to suggest that in the lie they support, being a republican or democrat.

Manipulated through campaign finance, Obama spent record $, $750 million getting elected, McCain held back on purpose I would bet so democrats would win & face what they are. WY2K did nothing to stop the bleeding the last two years in office, McCain only spent $350 million yet republicans accepted more than dems through campaign finance.

www.opensecrets.org It's all there yet the people post all this party affiliated nonsense? Obama to blame Bush, no Clinton set Bush up like I just said Bush set Obama & dems up? Republicans, democrats, & contributors are all in this together robbing all of US & now they have the courts.

If Capone were alive he'd be envious.

www.nextrevolution.net

The people are always on the losing end, doesn't matter which party while contributors, politicians, terrorist, & who ever has a million to give each parity, not one or the other, & both parties win every time. Sorry people, you are being taken by your own party through affiliation.

How dumb is the average republican & democrat? Obviously dense.

Posted by: greyghost1 | January 23, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Corporations and Unions are not human beings, and when the constitution was written they didn't even exist. The distortion of the constitution by this Supreme court is monumental legislation from the bench and can only be addressed with a constitutional ammendment, first to enforce free speech for humans only and second to increase the number of Supreme court justices from nine to fifteen or more to prevent any political party from packing the court with their political ideologs. It is time for the American people and their representatives to interpret the constitution for the Supreme court, because apparently they don't know how to.

Posted by: sunrise2 | January 23, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

I think this decision through the baby out with the bath water. Lets not overlook what the FEC did to Citizens United. It certainly seems to me like it grossly trampled on their rights but the decision as written really rolls goes far in the opposite direction.

Unlike everything Congress has overlooked for the last century this will need to be addressed soon. This Congress is unfortunately burdened by the results of the lazy self-serving actions/inactions of decades of their predecessors.

Posted by: annandale4913 | January 23, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

These are the same corporations that have their "headquarters" in a mailbox in the Bahamas or Ireland so as to avoid paying as much US tax as possible! They want the benefits of free speech and the ability to do business in the U.S. but they avoid paying for it. Jail 'em all -- the CEOs, COOs, boards of directors, etc., etc.

Posted by: fbeseler | January 23, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Of course. Obama only wants to hear from unbiased groups, Like ACORN.

Posted by: eldergent | January 23, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

I guess they don't want fair competition against the Acorn and corrupt unions like seiu.Their running scared because they have made a lot of powerful enemies.So much for your 'chicago way' Barack.To bad you really cant do anything about it except a constitutional amendment(not happening),so just go back to being a tough talking lame duck!!Boo hoo.

Posted by: votingrevolution | January 23, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

too bad, now the LA Times, NY Times, MSNBC, SEIU Unions and ACORN have competition, boo hoo. Obama is such a hypocrite and he thinks we cant see thru his words. He sells his votes to the Union pigs and he thinks nothing of it and then complains about corporate influence. Truth is, people do see his duplicity.

Posted by: snapplecat07 | January 23, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

This decision is a horrible blow to democracy and will totally undermine the will of The People, who will never stand a chance against corporate power. And while in the short run right wingers might be reveling in this hideous partisan decision, in the long run they will see how much it hurts the basic principles upon which this nation was founded. I honestly don't believe our Founders ever intended for corporations to be granted the rights of personhood. Corporations are not people. And they clearly aren't suffering from having a lack of voice in the legislative process.

Posted by: ggwalt | January 23, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Not very confident in peoples potential to discern right and wrong? What is the difference between many small and one big fool?

Posted by: uzs106 | January 23, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

This decision is a horrible blow to democracy and will totally undermine the will of The People, who will never stand a chance against corporate power. And while in the short run right wingers might be reveling in this hideous partisan decision, in the long run they will see how much it hurts the basic principles upon which this nation was founded. I honestly don't believe our Founders ever intended for corporations to be granted the rights of personhood. Corporations are not people. And they clearly aren't suffering from having a lack of voice in the legislative process.

Posted by: ggwalt | January 23, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

It's not about Obama, and I am not a fan of his. It's not about Obama.

This is not good.

Talk about being back in the Great Depression era. I feel like I just went back in time 100 years.

You think corruption is bad now, just give it a few years.

History really does repeat itself...yikes!

- Ray

Posted by: rmcazz | January 23, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

He doesn't like the Constitution, and as President speaks of the Court without respect.
The President's psychologist is working overtime.

Posted by: RayOne | January 23, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Wrong again Obama . . . the "devastation" comes from the left's unrelenting attempts to limit and eliminate free speech. The court's decision is a boon for democracy. You will not silence the people or their institutions.

Posted by: rplat | January 23, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

"As long as I'm your President, I'll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you," he said.
_____________________________________

....."as long as it isn't about health care reform, cap and tax carbon legislation, tort reform or ineffective deficit spending."

Posted by: edbyronadams | January 23, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Another activist conservative court ruling that gives the power to corporations the same as people. So much for the Constitution and the idea of clean governemnt. We the people must stop the conservatives and the corporatists.

Posted by: dwdave67 | January 23, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

The Obama haters are too blind to see that the Supreme Court has put the USA back to the Gilded Age. Of course I wouldn't expect them to know what that is or what it means, because if ignorance is bliss they are the happiest people!

Posted by: MyTulsecoPost | January 23, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

time for the Chamber of Commerce or the Fortune 500 or some entity they choose to hide behind

to publish a HIT LIST

of anticapitalist, socialist dems who need to be removed and will be targeted in Novemeber

with designated opposition funding PUBLISHED

say "Chuck Schumer--opposition fuiding $5 million"

UNLESS

they repent and vote republican immediately

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 23, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Makiz ~ I am not a robber baron and yet I find Democrats disgusting ~ same with their other Leftwingtard associates.

Posted by: muawiyah | January 23, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama’s Failed Presidency
Predictive Profile AFTER the Massachusetts Rebellion


Obama's Presidency is in free fall FAILURE.

When a Republican even had a CHANCE in Massachusetts-- the verdict is in on the Obama Administration.

Team Obama was voted off the island by angry Americans fed up with the stimulus waste, cap and trade, obama's incessant asinine attacks on capitalism as he kills jobs, obamacare and most importantly 10% unemployment.

A failed embittered Presidency can be extremely dangerous--
so a profile of Obama's like FUTURE actions is critical.

In his monumental work "Hitler and Stalin" Alan Bullock notes both Hitler and Stalin were narcissists. ProCounsel is NOT stating Obama is either Hitler or Stalin. But his analysis, written long before Obama's ascendancy, is a useful model.

Bullock explains narcissism on page 11:

"In such a state only the person himself, his needs,feelings and thoughts, everything and and everybody as they relate to him are experienced as fully real, while everybody and everything otherwise lacks reality or interest."

Bullock describes the effects of narcissism and provides a predictive model useful for Obama on page 343:

"Narcissistic personalities are convinced of their special qualities and their superiority over others, and any threat to this self image--such as being criticized, shown up, or defeated--produces a violent outrage and often a desire for revenge."

Bullock cites 3 psychological reactions Stalin used to guard his narcissistic self image. Bullock credits Robert Tucker for these insights on page 356. The 3 reactions to expect for the Obama profile would be:

a. Repression–simply blankly deny the truth, no matter how obvious or even if caught on video

b. Rationalization-Admit but use the fault as proof of his zeal

c. Projection-Obama will attribute to others the motives and attitudes he refuses to admit in himself

Don't believe the profile??

Just go back and review Obama's response to the Detroit airplane bombing. Obama went through all 3 stages above and that analysis is especially instructive as Obama was naked--without senior staff. Or use the profile on Obama’s disjointed speech in Ohio this week or the Stephanopolous interview this week, its all there.

Ironically, per the Profile Dems in the House and Senate will be in much more danger from a wounded irrelevant White House than the Republicans, as Obama will deem the Dems unworthy of him--THEY failed NOT him.

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 23, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

WOW!! Obama wants to keep his back room deals at the White House going without competition from the people. Obama wants to keep his Chicago gang using 'bare knuckles' tactics on his opponents without competition from the people. Obama wants to continue to make American enterprise and business the 'boogy man' without arguments from the otherside!

Thank God for the three distinct branches of government -- and a Supreme Court adhering to the Constitution!

Obama is losing trust, confidence and credibility on a DAILY BASIS. Never thought we would see this day arrive again during my life time, but would someone like to bet that if he continues on the avenue, calls for Obama's impeachment could come within the next 24 months???

Posted by: wheeljc | January 23, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

eaglehawkaroundsince1937 ~ now, now Nancy. That old codger was not your Grandfather ~ that was your own father. You're older than you think ~ too much botox Fur Shur.

Your dad bought and sold everybody, and those who wouldn't be bought he got them concrete and chain boots ~

And hey, wasn't he Mayor of Baltimore? Wonder where he got his campaig donations ~ certainly not from companies eh.

Posted by: muawiyah | January 23, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

The constitution is not a holy scripture and justices are not gods.
The constitution has been used to support slavery and natives americans obliteration.
Those gerontocrats we call justices are brandishing the constitution again to support robber barons.

Posted by: Makiz | January 23, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Like a little child Obama hits back at this weeks beatings he has taken. Well, Mr. President like a child who threatens to hold his breath until his parents do what he wants, he'll be blue before he gets what he wants.
Special interest group will buy elections he says, does that mean UNIONS? Does that mean the HOLLYWOOD ELITISTS? Does that mean CHICAGO POLITICS as it's been for a hundred years?
Well, union members and all those with 401K plans and other savings for your retirement look what this man has done to you. Over 400 points down in three days that have your money in Mutual Funds,ETF's,and just plain stocks & bonds. He rants about the banks because like most bombastic people he needs someone other than himself to blame. I don't know how much lower his rants will bring down the economy, but you younger folks had better teach your kids Chinese because they are buying our cheap debt & stock for cash!
Virginia demecrats,GONE--New Jersey demecrats,GONE--Mass. demecrats,GONE.Demecratic leadership had better reign this person (who I waited 4 hours on line to vote for) before November comes, & the only Democrat in sight in Washington will be the newspaper deliverer!
I'm not a hard line Republican, my father& grandfather were Roosevelt demecrats,In 68 years I've voted from Kennedy to Obama. Only Carter didn't get my vote, & I've never regretted that vote!
May will be here in 5 months, will the President of the United States march in a May Day parade holding a picture Of Stalin? I hope not.
Not old enough to survive Obama,but am working on my dumpster diving.
Bernie

Posted by: bernardgrossman | January 23, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

This is a victory for free speech. Any time any one speaker is silenced, free speech does not exist. Why are today's Democrats are always trying to negate constitutional rights in favor of "collective" rights? It is because they have truly become the New Socialist Party.

Posted by: MikeN3 | January 23, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

How the NeoCon Rich conquered America:

1. Reagan - Cut income tax for rich from 70% to 28%, doubling the National Debt in 6 years, creating more debt than the 39 presidents before him combined. "Debt doesn't matter" he convinced Americans. Subtext was to destroy the Federal government with massive debt so the rich can rule.

2. Talk radio - A 24/7 NeoCon propaganda machine.

3. Fox News - In 1986 the NeoCons launched their own TV and news network with the propaganda motto, "Fair and Balanced."

4. Supreme Court - Republican controlled, by a 5-4 vote, declares Bush the presidential winner over Gore under the theory, “we must meet the date for transition of power, counting the votes of the people to find out who actually won is not important.”

5. Bush - Lying America into the war on Iraq for oil. Doubled the National Debt, again. By the end of Bush’s presidency, he, his father, and Ronald Reagan had created $9 trillion of America’s $11 trillion debt.

6. Neocon Rich - move most of America’s jobs overseas to increase profits, creating massive, permanent unemployment across America.

7. Supreme Court - Republican controlled, by a 5-4 vote, decides corporations are people so they may spend unlimited amounts to corrupt elections.

Posted by: chucky-el | January 23, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

_____________________________
Or perhaps the worthless LIBS have been called on to do their part and pay their share. The free ride is over loser. Welcome to the USA!!!!!

Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

lionelroger ~ Abraham Lincoln and the Union won the Civil War and freed the slaves WITHOUT the law in question or the now extinct USSC precedents that made it possible.

I think American Democracy has just been restored.

Posted by: muawiyah | January 23, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

the beauty of this decision is that to ridicule obama

all you have to do

is play video of obama...............

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 23, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Obama Say's...It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way - or to punish those who don't... I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest."

This is good. Insofar as the clowns (all of them) won't listen to the general public and what WE want, maybe they will listen to the louder voice the corporations will muster.

WE the people can control the voices of the corporations, who "will" listen due to the threat of boycotts and/or diminishing sales

Posted by: frankn1 | January 23, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

The rich CEO's and corporations already own the government. With this ruling, it will be way more so now. Even foreign corporations will be able to mess in our politics.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | January 23, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

the Fortune 500 should have their own satellite and cable network 24/7

the Capitalist Response to Socialism Obama

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 23, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Common sense would have teabag nation backing Obama to the hilt on this... but you know about teabagging and common sense...dittoheads... special.

Posted by: seakeys |
----------------
I agree with your intent and I too back Obama. But note this - Democrats have got too used to calling Republicans, and independents who vote for them "dittoheads".

When you call people dittoheads, you are not going to get much cooperation from them. Either you respect Republicans and compromise with them, in which case you can have SOME results, or you insult them and then they sabotage your program.

For instance, I do not agree with Palin's positions and I would not vote for her. BUT, I am still appalled at the insults constantly levied in her direction, even obscene suggestions about her daughters. This should be out of bounds! Give it a rest, Democrats, and learn to respect Americans who think differently from you.

Your choice.

Posted by: rohitcuny | January 23, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

The most entertaining aspect of this case was to see the professional Left meowling about the Court having not followed earlier precedents from a century ago.

Did they imagine that the USSC is eternally set in bondorific cement?

A living Constitution requires, of course, a living USSC!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: muawiyah | January 23, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

poor little obama..........

business leaders do NOT have to take his bullying anymore without a tv response

and obama--most of corporate america is far smarter than team obama and will have better responses

this will have a HUGE effect against liberal dems and the media monopoly

analogous to the effect of drug ads on tv

before drug ads a dr had to recommmend and prescribe a drug

AFTER ads patients come to the drs office DEMANDING a prescription for a named drug

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 23, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

This will not only destroy whatever's left of American Democracy; there's more. Its a given that Corporate Boeards will be nothing but political action committees; this is bound to implode most Companies. If you can't spend your time making money, you can't buy many candidates.Interesting.

All of our elected representatives spend more time asking for campaign money than doing their job for the people. Corporate CEO' will have to spend as much time getting that money from the shareholders. It remains to be seen who will revolt first, the people or the shareholders.

Posted by: lionelroger | January 23, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Talk about legislating from the bench and trampling the Constitution...Man, I've seen it all now. This is the worst SCOTUS decision ever. Even worse than Roe vs. Wade.

Posted by: JD15 | January 23, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Yes by all means attack the court for determining a law is illegal instead of attacking those (US Congress) that passed an illegal law. It only prove that this m0r0n doesn't have the common sense or knowledge to be our president. He's an embarrassment.

Posted by: askgees | January 23, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

pssssssssttttt......obama

might want to CANCEL

summonsing big bank and wall street to the white house for

your hypocritical rants and lectures on tv

see, the big dogs and BITE back now

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 23, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Well, maybe he could be grateful for the inevitable ad agency jobs this will create. There will probably be more of them than any he's created so far.

Posted by: Lilycat11 | January 23, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

How the NeoCon Rich conquered America:

1. Reagan - Cut income tax for rich from 70% to 28%, doubling the National Debt in 6 years, creating more debt than the 39 presidents before him combined. "Debt doesn't matter" he convinced Americans. Subtext was to destroy the Federal government with massive debt so the rich can rule.

2. Talk radio - A 24/7 NeoCon propaganda machine.

3. Fox News - In 1986 the NeoCons launched their own TV and news network with the propaganda motto, "Fair and Balanced."

4. Supreme Court - Republican controlled, by a 5-4 vote, declares Bush the presidential winner over Gore under the theory, “we must meet the date for transition of power, counting the votes of the people to find out who actually won is not important.”

5. Bush - Lying America into the war on Iraq for oil. Doubled the National Debt, again. By the end of Bush’s presidency, he, his father, and Ronald Reagan had created $9 trillion of America’s $11 trillion debt.

6. Neocon Rich - move most of America’s jobs overseas to increase profits, creating massive, permanent unemployment across America.

7. Supreme Court - Republican controlled, by a 5-4 vote, decides corporations are people so they may spend unlimited amounts to corrupt elections.

Posted by: chucky-el | January 23, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

He wants to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to us?!!?!?!?! Tell that to the people of MA that you are ignoring right now, Mr. President! The lies and manipulation that this man is capable of don't seem to have an end.

I happen to think that corporations don't have 1st amendment rights, but I am not a lawyer, and certainly not a Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, I respect the Court's decision. Period. Abide by the law.

Isn't this guy supposed to be a constitutional expert?! The best thing he could do is go on an extended vacation to Hawaii, and let someone else run the show.

Posted by: andrew_d | January 23, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Obama accepts millions from unions, Hollywood, Soros, Wall Street,..., but is against corporate donations.

What phony outrage!

Obama's become transparent. The vast majority of people now know he's a fraud.

Posted by: bob59 | January 23, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Simple solution. Pass a law that requires an entity to pay the air time for an opposing view. If they are arguing over "free speech", this would be free. It would eliminate an "unfair" advantage and companies or large entities would think twice about having to spend so much money for both sides of an issue. Hopefully both sides give up and we don't have to listen to all the drivel.

Posted by: jakedogman | January 23, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

The Administrations position is " anything that doesn't FAVOR us is bad" anything that does favor us is good. What a bunch of hypocrits!

Posted by: Jimbo77 | January 23, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court should declare the rest of the US government unconstitutional and hand over the running of the country to Wall St. And then Wall St. could abolish the court.

Posted by: Matthew_DC | January 23, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Common sense would have teabag nation backing Obama to the hilt on this... but you know about teabagging and common sense...dittoheads... special.

Posted by: seakeys | January 23, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

of COURSE obama is outraged

see only DEMS should be able to buy votes

like landrieu

no corporations should have the chance to bid on landrieu.........

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 23, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

If it wasn't clear before, it should be clear now that we are in a class war.
John Roberts and his cronies have signaled that they believes that wealth is a sign of God's blessing and that those of us who do not possess wealth should defer to those of us who do.

Posted by: HaymarketObserver | January 23, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

I wish Rethuglicans were so interested in Liberty when Mr. 5-Time-Deferment Cheney was drawing up the Alien and SEdition, oops I mean "Patriot Act."

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | January 23, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Here's a paragraph from a piece by a former Federal Elections Commissioner:

"To truly appreciate the stakes in Citizens United, one must remember the government's legal position in the case. Implicit in its briefs but laid bare at oral argument, the government maintained that the Constitution allows the government to ban distribution of books over Amazon's Kindle; to prohibit a union from hiring a writer to author a book titled, "Why Working Americans Should Support the Obama Agenda"; and to prohibit Simon & Schuster from publishing, or Barnes & Noble from selling, a book containing even one line of advocacy for or against a candidate for public office. As David Barry would say, 'I am not making this up.'"

That's our government's position. A corporate bookseller can't sell a book (and a union can't commission a book) containing any advocacy whatsoever. But the WASHPO, NYT or WSJ (all corporations) can print whatever they want. If Google publishes the same thing, they're felons. Go figure.

Posted by: neilwied | January 23, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

This ruling allows foreign companies to have a huge effect on our political system. How is that good Repubs/Neocons? If China doesn't like how things are going, just buy the politician, legally?

Consider this, The total receipts of foreign-owned companies were $1.7 trillion in 1996 (in 1971 it was $39 billion).

Welcome to the Corporate States of America, the best Government money can buy.

Posted by: cmtn | January 23, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Why is it OK for the New York Times corporation to have free speech, but not, say, General Electric? Oh wait, they do (or did), through NBC.

Right, makes sense to me.

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | January 23, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama=Obummer. Is it 2012 yet, Hillary where are you?

Posted by: billbridgesmaccom | January 23, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Few options? LOL. Give me one day of support and I could easily neutralize the Scotus ruling. An Amendment requiring a 2/3 vote is not the answer. Change the tax code by simple majority budget process to make all corporations that exceed the previous limitations pay the individual rate instead of the average 12% (due to loopholes on 25%) that corporations pay. No corporation is ignorant enough to cut off it's nose to spite it's face.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 23, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Of course he doesn't like this decision . . . it will tend to neutralize much of the massive flow of political funds from the left. Sorry Obama, you've been trumped by free speech and the Constitution.

Posted by: rplat | January 23, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Why go after the four conservatives on the bench? Kennedy is the swing vote now. He is the guy you liberal people should be going after.

But what a great liberal crew of four on the bench!! The female Souter (assuming Souter qualifies as male), Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens (assuming he has a clue where he is at age 189).

Posted by: hz9604 | January 23, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

http://www.allbyer.com
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,2010 New Year's gift you ready?Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3)$35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress
--- NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 --- NFL Jersey $35--- NBA Jersey $ 34 --- MLB Jersey $ 35--- Jordan Six Ring_m $36 --- Air Yeezy_m $ 45--- T-Shirt_m $ 25 --- Jacket_m $ 36
--- Hoody_m $ 50 --- Manicure Set $ 20thanks... Company launched New Year carnival
as long as the purchase of up to 200, both exquisite gift, surprise here, do not miss,
welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details, please consult
http://www.allbyer.com
........♫
....♫
..♪
........♬

...♪......♪

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Posted by: wyerytrujytueukiup | January 23, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

The latest SCOTUS ruling is an argument in favor of ending the life tenure of the judges. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, are a pox on the country. They should not be able to keep their jobs for life while opening the door wide to corporations legally buying our politicians.

Posted by: Gatsby10 | January 23, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

The correct answer is: I respect the court's decision.

Posted by: oracle2world | January 23, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

The height of hypocrisy from the person who abandoned federal campaign funds after promising to use them, raised unlimited amounts of money and then spend his opponent into oblivion! Wonder what the outcome would have been if McCain or Clinton had benefited from this?

Posted by: PghGuy | January 23, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

I would not be surprised if he tries to pack the court like FDR. This commited, die-hard statist lusts for power and is a threat to our liberty.

Posted by: hit4cycle | January 23, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

This is laughable. The man who rejected federal matching funds -- in essence, killed the program -- and then raised unprecedented amounts of money to buy the presidency is worried about the influence of corporate money on elections? Dear God, why did you let me vote for him? I should have voted for A.B.O.

Posted by: NYCReader1 | January 23, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama would like to silence his opponents. Tell me, in this respect how does he differ from Hugo Chavez?

Posted by: JBaustian | January 23, 2010 7:04 AM | Report abuse

check out how bad obozo's choice for TSA is:

Here's the guy Obama wants to put incharge of the TSA.

Video:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/787.html

Posted by: charlietuna666 | January 23, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

"As long as I'm your President, I'll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you."
---------------------------------------------------
The hypocrisy of this slug knows no bounds. What a boldface lie to spin just after he cuts a deal with the unions in his office to "protect" them from the taxes to be levied on ordinary citizens. Where was "our" powerful voice then? It's a good thing he let his law license lapse because he sure doesn't know anything about the Constitution, especially the First Amendment. I hope he's at least read up on Article II, Section 4 governing impeachment!

Posted by: jpost1 | January 23, 2010 6:33 AM | Report abuse

Oh the memories of how I watched my wealthy evil Grandfather buy and sell elected officials at the expense of us all. Jackels all of them. Just what is/was the high court thinking? What toppled my Grandfather eventually was a few angered young politicans who took him on full force. This must happen again. This is happening again. :)

Posted by: eaglehawkaroundsince1937 | January 23, 2010 6:16 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company