Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama warns of hidden corporate money in midterm campaigns

By Scott Wilson

VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass. -- President Obama warned voters Saturday about the hidden influence of corporate donations in midterm campaigns after a Supreme Court decision this year that allows companies, unions and other special interests to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates and causes for the first time.

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama blamed Senate Republicans, his villain of choice as the November elections near, for blocking legislation that would have placed restrictions on corporate or union campaign spending after the court's Citizens United ruling lifted many of the regulations.

"This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark," Obama said. "They don't want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide."

Obama has increasingly used his weekly address - usually a folksy presidential explanation of legislation or inspirational homily to the American people - as a way to make a political statement with the midterm campaign season beginning in earnest.

This week, Obama again criticizes the tactics of Senate Republicans, whom he took to task during his cross-country fund-raising tour earlier in the week for blocking much of his legislative agenda. His partisan tone has sharpened in recent weeks, with his party facing potentially big Congressional losses in November and his own poll numbers slipping.

In Seattle, for example, he called on Senate Republicans to allow a vote on small-business legislation when they return from summer recess as part of the message he is building around steps he has taken to improve a still-flagging economy.

The Supreme Court's January ruling in the Citizens United case infuriated Obama, who took the unusual step of publicly rebuking the justices in his State of the Union address as they sat in the front rows. Chief Justice John Roberts later called the comments inappropriate from a president in such a setting.

Last month, Senate Democrats failed to muster enough votes to bring legislation, known as the Disclose Act, to a vote, with Republicans opposing the measure as a bloc. Republican leaders have said the Democrats are only pushing the legislation to preserve their majorities in the House and Senate this fall.

"Americans want us to focus on jobs, but by focusing on an election bill, Democrats are sending a clear message to the American people that their jobs aren't as important as the jobs of embattled Democrat politicians," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said in an e-mail response to Obama's address.

"The President says this bill is about transparency. It's transparent alright -- it's a transparent effort to rig the fall elections."

The bill would require organizations involved in campaigns to identify large donors, and to make them known explicitly in campaign ads.

As an example, Obama said, "whoever is running and funding the ad would have to appear in the advertisement and take responsibility for it - like a company's CEO or an organization's biggest contributor."

The measure would also bar political spending by foreign companies, government contractors and companies that received federal bailout money. Shareholders would also have to be notified of any political spending by the corporations they own a stake in.

"We cannot allow the corporate takeover of our democracy," Obama said in his address. "So we're going to continue to fight for reform and transparency. And I urge all of you to take up the same fight. Let's challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us in stopping it."

By Scott Wilson  |  August 21, 2010; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  2010 Election , 44 The Obama Presidency , Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Palin endorsement poll: How many will win?
Next: Blago is 'serious' about political comeback

Comments

what a bunch of idiots !!! so unions, which are run to help the middle working class get fair and just work conditions, are being compared to muti-national conglomerates whose CEO's make 600 million in bonuses? So unions that represent middle class Americans, are put on the same page as corporations? are you really that stupid? so middle class america supported Obama in '08; isn't that a good thing? you'd rather have your President supported by corporations who go for the bottom line not the bottom of the heap workers? Where the heck are your priorities? are you so stupidly blinded by idealogy amd bigotry that you would campaign against your best interests?
Bush, in a report to Congress on Feb10/04, said about outsourcing american manufactoring jobs, and white collar work, said: "...it is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the US economy over time, even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation." So that moved helped corporations, but it certainly did not help unions or the middle class. and how much longer is the short term gain supposed to last? It's been over six years...It was GOP appointed judges that gave corporations the rights of human being citizens, and you continue to call this Prez dumb, stupid, arrogant(after 43 making jokes of looking for WMD's in the Oval, how can Obama be arrogant in comparison). )

Posted by: katem1 | August 23, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Read about this crazy story about Republican gubernatorial candidate and Fox News regular John Kasich:

http://proposition13.blogspot.com/2010/08/ohio-gubernatorial-candidate-john.html

Posted by: HitEleven | August 22, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Unions were formed to insure the rights of workers. Unlike corporations they were formed to represent people, not to make a buck.

Some would argue that giving corporations the right to enter the electoral financing process directly with candidates and interest groups, as unions do, "levels the playing field." This is a falsehood.

If you combined all the assets of all the unions in the United States it would equal less than one-tenth of one percent of the PROFIT of the four largest banks in America. I would hardly call that a level playing field.

In Minnesota, all the state's unions combined have given nearly $800,000 this mid-term to the candidates and causes their membership voted to approve (one person, one vote). Three corporations alone in Minnesota(the one's known to have given) have written a total of more than half that amount, and there are hundreds of corporations in Minnesota.

Five radical judges on the Supreme Court rewrote our Constitution with this ruling.

They overturned not only Federal Law, but the two previous Supreme Court rulings that examined this issue, and the laws of all 50 of these United States. We somehow accept that these five guys are correct, while everyone else since the founding have been wrong.

Corporations are not people, citizens or voters, and the Constitution only recognizes the rights of person, citizens and voters.
Our forefathers did not envision pieces of paper (corporations) as having free speech rights. The notion is absurd, and they were fully aware of corporations in the the 1700's (the first known corporation was founded a hundred years earlier).

To say free speech must be allowed to be made anonymously implies that speech really isn't free. (Just as this court had previously ruled that funding candidates is the exact same thing as free speech--making it for sale speech.) This court's reasoning is totally anti-thetical to why there is a first amendment in the first place--to guarantee that speech (oral or written) can be made freely.

In my view, beyond being un-Constitutional, this ruling was a fascist coup.

--------------------
For those who think fascism is simply a derogatory term, it is the partnership of corporations and the government (including its military).

Also of note. When Bush the Second used National Guardsman from other states to "protect" our border, he violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which was established to prevent the President from using the military for police purposes outside of their legal jurisdiction and purpose. When the National Guard was taken out from under each state's Governor and given to the President, we lost our state's rights completely. This also happened with Bush's tax cut for the wealthy, which threw the 31 states, which base their income tax on the federal form, immediately into the red--depriving the people of those states of the revenue their legislators had budgeted on behalf of its citizens.

Posted by: wayoffbaseguy | August 22, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

"Hidden money"? Like from Unions? ROFLMAO!

Posted by: illogicbuster | August 22, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

A comment posted earlier said as follows:

The ruling has created a Super-Citizen, whose interests are self-serving by definition, and are unrepresentative of the people.

The way Obama is leading andCongres is votng is unrepresentative of the people.

So why should we consider his wishes now?

Posted by: rmstrock | August 22, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

It appears to me there are some who want Wall St, the rich to have complete control over our lives and livelihood. A return to further destruction.
At least the unions represent middle class America. Your republicans, Wall st most certainly do not.
A $1 million donation from Fox (fair and balanced?) to the republican governors association is good example of trying to stear the elections.
Did you all know the second largest shareholder of Fox is a member of the Saudi Arabia royal family?

Posted by: kathlenec | August 22, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I HAVE VOTED REPUBLICAN MOST OF MY LIFE I HAVE VOTED FOR 50 YEARS

THE CEO CONTROL OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SCARES ME SO MUCH EVEN DEMOCRATS SPENDING LOOKS BETTER

I HOPE ENOUGH INDEPENDANTS ARE ELECTED TO TAKE CONTROL FROM BOTH THE DEMOCRATS AND THE REPUBLICANS

Posted by: theoldmansays | August 22, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

I see the money the taxpayors paid to bailout corpotaions coming back to elect the politicians that they want

they are setting on the money not hiring or spending till after NOVEMBER

ARE the corporation going to go another bailout??? by electing politicians that won't put controls in place to stop greed??

BE SMART WHEN YOU VOTE-- VOTE FOR GOOD REPUBLICANS AND GOOD DEMOCRATS AND SOME GOOD INDEPENDANTS

Posted by: theoldmansays | August 22, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black! What about the millions that he got for his campaign in 2008 from unions and unknown source? What a hypocrite...its like when they told the black panthers to not come back to the voting polls until 2012 when he will need them to influence the voters again. LOL, why not band them from the voting places forever?

Hope everyone brings their memory to the voting booth on Nov 2010 and Nov 2012.

Posted by: van.m.reagle@comcast.net | August 22, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Is this what our Founding Fathers envisioned?

"Anonymus Free Speech for a Piece of Paper?

Corporations are entities--legal instruments, a corporation is a not person, citizen or voter. Unlike unions or PACs, corporations were not formed to represent the free speech interests of their members. They were formed to make profit.

Also, unlike unions and PACs, corporations are not democratic nor coroporations hold to the principle of one person, one vote. In fact, one person could own majority interest in a corporation, and thus grossly exceed personal

The management of the corporations, if they are Americans, have free speech protection, already. However, they do not have to American citizens to make decisons of where and how much money to give. Most corporation have partial foreign ownership, and they do business with these govenments and our government.

Corporations are pieces paper, they are businesses, not the individuals granted free spech rights under the Constitution.

The ruling has created a Super-Citizen, whose interests are self-serving by definition, and are unrepresentative of the people.

Posted by: wayoffbaseguy | August 22, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama's a divisive piece of work. The sooner this guy's term is over, the better. Then maybe America can come together.

Posted by: logicprevails | August 22, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Once again Obama, in true Hugo Chavez fashion, attacks private enterprise for daring to support candidates other than Democrats.....and he wonders why businesses aren't hiring. Obama's weekly tirade against American private enterprise keeps businesses fearing his tax hikes, more expensive government regulations, plus additional govermental attacks.

The main reason the economy isn't moving forward is the threat of Obama's socialist agenda - once removed the US will recover.....but not until the inexperienced socialist community organizer leaves the White House.

Posted by: Realist201 | August 22, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

This coming from the party that has brought bags of Chinese money into the oval office. Ohhhh please give us a break. Your bias is getting so overwhelming that you are about to join the NYT on the bottom of the bird cage.

Posted by: LadyChurchillUSA | August 22, 2010 7:04 AM | Report abuse

This coming from the party that has brought bags of Chinese money into the oval office. Ohhhh please give us a break. Your bias is getting so overwhelming that you are about to join the NYT on the bottom of the bird cage.

Posted by: LadyChurchillUSA | August 22, 2010 7:04 AM | Report abuse

This coming from the party that has brought bags of Chinese money into the oval office. Ohhhh please give us a break. Your bias is getting so overwhelming that you are about to join the NYT on the bottom of the bird cage.

Posted by: LadyChurchillUSA | August 22, 2010 7:03 AM | Report abuse

Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates. In 2008, unions spent $74.5 million in campaign contributions, with $68.3 million going to the Democratic Party. Already, unions have contributed $6.5 million to the 2010 elections, and $6 million has gone to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.

Now here's the kicker this year. Obama supplied the unions with billions of dollars within the last 18 months, for what? You guessed it.

Posted by: hunter340 | August 22, 2010 5:12 AM | Report abuse

A new President having campaigned on transparency and "change" then virtually his FIRST act is to make all his records secret and under his sole control. Yes, Bush did the same in Nov. 2001 - months after his election and following the attack on our nation.

Executive Order 13489,

"In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section,
the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent
President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order."

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf

Obama has lost all credibility except with his blind worshipers living in denial.

Posted by: sally62 | August 22, 2010 2:13 AM | Report abuse

Millions of people remember that Barack Obama repeatedly promised in 2008 that his administration would uphold the highest ethical standards with a particular emphasis on transparency and accountability.

There is a fast growing international awareness that virtually the entire paper trail of the current president's existence remains deeply hidden away under a tight shroud of secrecy.

Barack Obama's original typewritten long form birth certificate, school records, SAT and LSAT scores, college and law school admission records and transcripts and thesis papers, medical records, passport history and other relevant records and documents have all never been released or allowed to be subjected to any sort of scrutiny, despite several years of repeated requests for disclosure by numerous individuals and non-traditional media organizations.

The Obama 2008 campaign and subsequent administration has to date spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees, estimated to be in the millions of dollars, to fight Freedom of Information Act filings and other requests to examine this material. On his first full day in office, January 21, 2009, the current president signed Executive Order 13489, effectively prohibiting the release or disclosure of any of his personal records or papers without his specific authorization.

This comprehensive degree of secrecy is unprecedented in modern American political history. Every presidential candidate since Thomas Dewey in 1948 has willing released such records and documents upon serious request, on some occasions directly to the campaigns of their rivals, thus acknowledging that the process of running for president should be the toughest job interview on the planet. Certainly there have been a few instances where some candidates were less immediately forthcoming than others, the controversy in 2000 about the national guard service records of George W. Bush being a recent example, but the current president glaringly stands out for the near totality of concealment of virtually the entire paper trail of his past life.

This matter cannot be seriously discussed with examining the role of the mainstream media, as they have obviously given Barack Obama a remarkable free pass on this basic issue of personal truth and accountability. It has become customary in modern times for presidential candidates to release the substantive entirety of their paper trails, indeed up until 2008 precisely because of a strong mainstream media interest. It is entirely appropriate to consider why the current president has received such a special exception to this time-honored tradition. In their eagerness to "make history" by covering the campaign of the man whom they were clearly interested in helping to become the first black president, the mainstream media failed in their national responsibility to report on significant events with objectivity and transparency.

What is being hidden and why are they hiding it?

Posted by: FlashHarry | August 22, 2010 1:36 AM | Report abuse

Millions of people remember that Barack Obama repeatedly promised in 2008 that his administration would uphold the highest ethical standards with a particular emphasis on transparency and accountability.

There is a fast growing international awareness that virtually the entire paper trail of the current president's existence remains deeply hidden away under a tight shroud of secrecy.

Barack Obama's original typewritten long form birth certificate, school records, SAT and LSAT scores, college and law school admission records and transcripts and thesis papers, medical records, passport history and other relevant records and documents have all never been released or allowed to be subjected to any sort of scrutiny, despite several years of repeated requests for disclosure by numerous individuals and non-traditional media organizations.

The Obama 2008 campaign and subsequent administration has to date spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees, estimated to be in the millions of dollars, to fight Freedom of Information Act filings and other requests to examine this material. On his first full day in office, January 21, 2009, the current president signed Executive Order 13489, effectively prohibiting the release or disclosure of any of his personal records or papers without his specific authorization.

This comprehensive degree of secrecy is unprecedented in modern American political history. Every presidential candidate since Thomas Dewey in 1948 has willing released such records and documents upon serious request, on some occasions directly to the campaigns of their rivals, thus acknowledging that the process of running for president should be the toughest job interview on the planet. Certainly there have been a few instances where some candidates were less immediately forthcoming than others, the controversy in 2000 about the national guard service records of George W. Bush being a recent example, but the current president glaringly stands out for the near totality of concealment of virtually the entire paper trail of his past life.

This matter cannot be seriously discussed with examining the role of the mainstream media, as they have obviously given Barack Obama a remarkable free pass on this basic issue of personal truth and accountability. It has become customary in modern times for presidential candidates to release the substantive entirety of their paper trails, indeed up until 2008 precisely because of a strong mainstream media interest. It is entirely appropriate to consider why the current president has received such a special exception to this time-honored tradition. In their eagerness to "make history" by covering the campaign of the man whom they were clearly interested in helping to become the first black president, the mainstream media failed in their national responsibility to report on significant events with objectivity and transparency.

What is being hidden and why are they hiding it?

Posted by: FlashHarry | August 22, 2010 1:27 AM | Report abuse

So what's good for the silly goose is not good for the ganders. Seeing as President Potato Head and the DNC collected umpteen millions fron the Unions, who in return expect card check and no regulation on their contributions, where is he coming from with this holier thn thou 'tude?

Posted by: nosuchluck | August 22, 2010 1:01 AM | Report abuse

The first official action by Obama was an EO to hide his records on January 21st 2009.

If he doesn't mean "do as I say not as I do"...but means "follow me" then Mr POTUS could lead by example by un-hiding a few of the following:
Obama's birth certificate
Obama's kindergarten records
Obama's Punahou School records
Obama's Occidental College records
Obama's Columbia University records
Obama's Columbia thesis "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"
Obama's Harvard Law School records
Obama's Harvard Law Review articles
Obama's University of Chicago scholarly articles
Obama's Passport (redacted copy released)
Obama's Medical records
Complete files and schedules of Obama's years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004
Obama's client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard
Obama's Illinois State Bar Association records
Obama's Baptism records
Obama/Dunham marriage license
Obama/Dunham divorce documents
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
Obama's Adoption records

And BTW, Obama's campaign got away with not activating the address verification for credit card donations thereby most likely allowing foreigners to contribute to the purchase of the US presidency. And remember the poor people some reporter found who had given the max even though they lived in a ramshackle house in south San Francisco? And does anyone think the head of GE isn't waiting for a huge payday thanks to cap n trade and this is why his reporters kiss zero's butt? Don't you think the unions pulled out all the stops to funnel money in anticipation of being rewarded by you and me and your neighbors with money confiscated from us?

This is the real redistribution of wealth that's going on....from the middle class to the politically connected class. Hasn't one of our traditional strengths been a strong middle class? Obviously these people aim to fix that bothersome problem by bringing us to our knees with the yolk of debt on our shoulders for generations.

I do not believe a thing Obama says.

Posted by: JWhite2 | August 22, 2010 12:57 AM | Report abuse

This is classic. No mention of the massive illegal donations to the 2008 Obama campaign from foreign credit cards?

Posted by: asdf2 | August 22, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

"Also, the DISCLOSE act (as amended by Sen. Schumer who introduced it in the Senate) would place the same disclosure requirements on Unions that it places on Corporations
Posted by: skyesteele"

Not true. You neglected to mention that in order for the Disclose act to first gain sufficient Democratic support it needed to exempt large associations and organizations from the requirements. The NRA, Sierra club, most major unions and many other organizations with large numbers of members have been exempted from the bill. The disclose act would target all corporations and smaller non-profit associations and organizations.

Posted by: cprferry | August 22, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

We know the President wishes to exempt unions and partisan interests from criticism.

However, this from a President (and leader of a political party) that talked tough about evil health care dollars while they've actually collected contributions from insurers and pharmaceuticals at a 2-to-1 rate (look it up at opensecrets.org) ? Same with Wall Street and other industries.

This is pure Clintonian politics. Talk tough about an industry, and exchange exemptions and influence for contributions. The end result is a stuffed campaign chest and terrible legislation.

This is the legacy of Obama: instituting Clinton's play book to the extreme.

Posted by: cprferry | August 21, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Typical Obama--he raises millions from foreigners like George Soros, plus more millions from his Muslim brothers via the Internet...and then takes the holier-than-thou posture to lie about the opposing parties.

Obama, your village called today--they want their idiot back, please pack your bags.

Posted by: JCM-51 | August 21, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

It is so disingenuous for Obama who is on the corporate take himself. You bet your sweet BeePee he's on the take. There is no other explanation. Obama is the first American president to surrender to the British.

The British burned the White House once, and now they bought it: Lock Stock and Oil Barrel. It almost looks like they've done the same to to Congress.

Blago hints the President is as corrupt as he is. Obama sure knows how to play the media.

Posted by: alance | August 21, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

How about union money, hypocrite?

I have seldom so relished v oting against someone and some party.

Posted by: kdfal | August 21, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

the DISCLOSE act, which was filibustered by the GOP in the Senate, contains nothing in it that circumvents the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.

Actually, 8 of the 9 justices (all but Clarence Thomas) expressed support for strengthened disclosure requirements in the wake of their decision. Justice Stevens went so far as to comment on the advisability of congressional action on this front.

Also, the DISCLOSE act (as amended by Sen. Schumer who introduced it in the Senate) would place the same disclosure requirements on Unions that it places on Corporations.

STILL NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE.

also, 77% of Americans want congress to act to limit Corporate influence in elections.

STILL NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE.

Posted by: skyesteele | August 21, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Nero is speaking,fire is on!! NOBAMA, people will be speaking soon if not by Votes,by militia.The raging fire in your vengence for atonement is not justified. There is no room in your heart for transparent democracy. Your hate is burning and kindliness and love are not your kind,Wright is not might,candle is not a kindle of fire.Every one can see the stripped image of CHANGE,the RAWBAMA.

GE, gee are they behind you, the big fat cats of corporate power

Posted by: jayrkay | August 21, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

This guy Obama sounds like a dictator.
The issue has been settled by the SC but he doesn't like it, it intereferes with his idea of free elections.
Nueter him in the fall before he gets anymore crazy ideas to circumvent rulings made by the SC.
Obama is dangerous.

Posted by: cburbank | August 21, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

This guy Obama sounds like a dictator.
The issue has been settled by the SC but he doesn't like it, it intereferes with his idea of free elections.
Nueter him in the fall before he gets anymore crazy ideas to circumvent rulings made by the SC.
Obama is dangerous.

Posted by: cburbank | August 21, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

This guy Obama sounds like a dictator.
The issue has been settled by the SC but he doesn't like it, it intereferes with his idea of free elections.
Nueter him in the fall before he gets anymore crazy ideas to circumvent rulings made by the SC.
Obama is dangerous.

Posted by: cburbank | August 21, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

It's not corporations Mr. President needs to worry about. It's "we the people." We are p.o.'d, and we're coming in November.

Posted by: SavingGrace | August 21, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the bottom feeding dems exist on union donations. WAPO should check out donations from SEIU, AFLCIO and the hundreds of public unions. You know, those little guys!!!
The unions are the only ones working these days! UAW has been mighty quiet lately and as they should since gaining untold billions in bailouts and 31% ownership in GM as the bondholders get 10cents on the dollar. LOL
Obama is the worst president in my 60 years. The most polarizing and demonizing president ever.

Posted by: usmc1969 | August 21, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the bottom feeding dems exist on union donations. WAPO should check out donations from SEIU, AFLCIO and the hundreds of public unions. You know, those little guys!!!
The unions are the only ones working these days! UAW has been mighty quiet lately and as they should since gaining untold billions in bailouts and 31% ownership in GM as the bondholders get 10cents on the dollar. LOL
Obama is the worst president in my 60 years. The most polarizing and demonizing president ever.

Posted by: usmc1969 | August 21, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

The only hidden money that will show up in the midterms will be from: the unions, ACORN and affiliates, the money that George Soros secretly will funnel into the races, and the free promotion that will come from the LSM.

Posted by: mike85 | August 21, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

What a wonderful world it could be if only the Brave Hearted souls who bleet and show so little intelligence as they hide behind masks and not having to identyfy themselves-- just like the Ku Klux Klan. If they would only learn the truth and start pulling for our great country.

Posted by: peep1935 | August 21, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Does the man ever stop whining??? What a complete wuss.


Everyone knows the Dems and Obama specifically have taken millions in donations from these groups. Now he wants to nip it in the bud? Why? Because he knows that they sure aren't donating to him this go round.

What a wussie.

Posted by: playfair109 | August 21, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

WaPo -- ask your boss (Obama) to give us all of the details of his relationship with Tony Rezko -- Rezko's involvement in the purchase of the Obama home; Rezko's involvement in previous Obama campaigns, including 'funds'; and how many 'bundles' Rezko obtained for any of his campaigns.

When you finish that investigative piece, the TEACH OBAMA SOME MANNERS AS TO HOW TO ACT WHEN DELIVERING A STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS, AND HOW HE SHOULD ADDRESS THE SUPREME COURT!

Thanks!

Posted by: wheeljc | August 21, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

WaPo -- ask your boss (Obama) to give us all of the details of his relationship with Tony Rezko -- Rezko's involvement in the purchase of the Obama home; Rezko's involvement in previous Obama campaigns, including 'funds'; and how many 'bundles' Rezko obtained for any of his campaigns.

When you finish that investigative piece, the TEACH OBAMA SOME MANNERS AS TO HOW TO ACT WHEN DELIVERING A STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS, AND HOW HE SHOULD ADDRESS THE SUPREME COURT!

Thanks!

Posted by: wheeljc | August 21, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

"People with something to hide....." Yeah, Barry,Start producing some documents. In the meantime, get the Justice Department official back from South Carolina and present him to the Civil Rights Commission - Now! You start this crapola about people having something to hide and you're going to get subpoenas out the ying yang. In fact, you're going to get them anyway.

Posted by: chatard | August 21, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Congress has turned into a pet dog of big business (BB)...when they say sit, Congress obeys and when they say roll over, it obeys...time for congress to dissolve itself and let BB take over...goodbye conservatives and hasta la vista liberals; BB will now pay off the Supreme Court for its support.

Posted by: juke2 | August 21, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

To say that GOP (Greedy Obstructionist Phart) Senator Mitch McConnell is "disingenuous" would be an injustice - the man is an out and out lier. The Republicans don't give a rats *** about jobs, all they want is their power back so they can go back to screwing up and screwing over the good old USA and using the Constitution as an RNC doormat. Weasels one and all.

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | August 21, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse


Under our system of government, five Republican men on the Supreme Court can simply hand our government over to a corporate oligarchy without any redress from the 535 members of Congress, the President or the people of the United States.

Certainly, we could amend the Constitution, but that would take a two-thirds vote of Congress and approval by three-quarters of the states. And, by then, the corporations would already control our elections.

The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party now controls our broadcast media, most of our newspapers and actually owns a cable news channel headed by the former media strategist for Richard Nixon, the only president in American history to resign.

Democracy is in political checkmate. It's all window dressing from here on.

Posted by: motorfriend | August 21, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama is such a liar - th eDems get their money from the labor unions they support, from the ambulance chasing trial lawyers they support, from the limp-wristed lefties like George Soros who make billions on Democratic policies. Each time Obama speaks he lies and th eAmerican public knows it and that is why the midterms and the 2012 General Elections will be disasterous for obama and all his dim-witted Democratic party allies.

Posted by: Realist201 | August 21, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

This man is the most disgusting one to hold the office!
He does not "lead". He does not "inspire".
He does not "compromise".
His constant "blame game", his constant "divisive statements", his constant "fight with the Republicans" are doing nothing but to destroy this once great Nation.....but then again, isn't that what he wants?

Posted by: senatorgoofy | August 21, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

This president is absolutely clueless on union contributions? Oh yes, it's the double standard principle! What an idiot....is there no one that can explain union contributions to him?

Posted by: SeniorVet | August 21, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Whys arn't there Talk about Hidden $Funds from the $BAIL-OUT to the Criminal $BANKsters? - Or about hiddeb $Funds passed around from the IRAQ WAR? - Come on,- out with it all! -- Just where did the 3-Cargo Planes full of $Cash to IRAQ Go? - Still over $1-Billion in CASH Missing in IRAQ!! DA!?- aNYONE COULD LOSE A 1-HUNDRED DOLLAR BILL,- BUT how about 200- Large Duffel Bags Full of stacks of $one-hundred dollar bills??!! -- That would be Impossible to Lose or Mis-place -- Right America?

Posted by: jward52 | August 21, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

None of the DNC's vastly bigger bucks come from "corporate" or "organized" outfits (AKA unions--especially handsomely-paid government unions with fixed retirement and insurance bene's...unlike most of the tax-payers who pay them)?

LMAO!

Posted by: mftill | August 21, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

None of the DNC's vastly bigger bucks come from "corporate" or "organized" outfits (AKA unions--especially handsomely-paid government unions with fixed retirement and insurance bene's...unlike most of the tax-payers who pay them)?

LMAO!

Posted by: mftill | August 21, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Look up the definition of HYPOCRITE in the dictionary, and it asks you to refer to Barack Obama.

This President, who amassed the largest campaign war chest in election history, collected vast sums from unions, foreign governments, various unknown overseas contributors, and even Palestinians, in order to get elected.

Now he has the gall to warn us??!!

God help us all.

Posted by: r_loveland | August 21, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Dear King Barry, the Labor Unions lined your pockets nicely, right? He didn't give them an honorable mention... only condemnation of the Big Bad Business guys... a man consumed by arrogance, incompetence and left-tilt ideology.

Posted by: patsyd | August 21, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

i find it more than a little funny that Obama warns about "corporate donations" but conveniently makes no mention of union donations. This guy is unbelievable!

Posted by: Capitalismworks | August 21, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Corporations are making profits, but they still aren't hiring. The reasoning some corporations give is that there is uncertainty in the market. Isn't there always uncertainty in the market?

At face value, it seems that corporations are not going to start hiring until after the November elections when Republicans anticipate taking over one or both Houses of Congress. Hiring while Democrats are in control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency gives Democrats a strong 'jobs record' and too much political power.

There's no sign of a conspiracy, but the President may be on to something.

Posted by: Circa2012 | August 21, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"We cannot allow the corporate takeover of our democracy," Obama said in his address.

Meaning it's OK for my special interest groups to fund campaigns, but not yours. Personally I think no group of any kind should be able to contribute to campaigns in any form, but if one group can, then any group should have the same rights and privileges. So how about a compromise - any group that contributes must be identified, BUT no candidate or party may vilify the opposition based on contributions or whether they are corporate, union, etc. In other words, don't claim that union or some activist group contributions are acceptable and "democratic" but corporate or other activist group contributions aren't. Otherwise, you are preaching censorship - my book, my group, my ideology is acceptable; yours isn't; just who has been bestowed with the wisdom, the values, and the right to make that decision.

Posted by: tnvret | August 21, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

How dare those corporations engage in free speech and spend their money as they see fit. Don't they know all must bow to the will of the Chosen One, and all money is the property of the State?

Posted by: Chippewa | August 21, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama is fond of comparing his situation to Reagan's - what a joke! Reagan put in place policies to empower the private sector, while Obama has wildly expand government control and influence. The American people have seen the poverty of Obama's economic vision, and his inability to get the economy back on track. The issue of campaign donations is simply the most recent unsuccessful effort by Obama to distract the electorate away from his failed policies. Change definitely will be coming in November, but thankfully it will be far different from the change Obama envisioned 18 months ago.

Posted by: JM80 | August 21, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse


im not sure obummer wants to go there considering that unions are outspending corporations 3 to 1 and unions are about twice as unpopular as corporations. generally speaking, corporations create jobs and unions kill them.

Posted by: dummypants | August 21, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse


im not sure obummer wants to go there considering that unions are outspending corporations 3 to 1 and unions are about twice as unpopular as corporations. generally speaking, corporations create jobs and unions kill them.

Posted by: dummypants | August 21, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

President Crawdad blurps:

"Do as I say, not as I do!"

Posted by: SAINT---The | August 21, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Barry can burp sing the Star Spangled Banner for all I care. I am done listening until election day in 2012.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | August 21, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Noting like some good old right-wing tradition - buy an election.

Why not? They haven't had an agenda since Newter's Contract On America. Not one of the right-wing anarchists has any clue about fixing all the things republicans broke these last 40 years.

Posted by: BigTrees | August 21, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

obama and the dems will get donations from the fat cats that were paid more than 3 times from goverment money for destroying the economy per the dems order...
they destroyed the economy to get obama elected...
now it's time to throw them out...

Posted by: DwightCollins | August 21, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

What a joke! Obama got millions in Union money and thousands of free ground troops and Obama then paid unions off with our tax dollars stiffing investors at GM and Chrysler.
What Corruption!

Posted by: beecheery | August 21, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

What about not so hidden Union money?

Posted by: wewintheylose | August 21, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

the dems shut Republicans out of the process...
why should the Republicans vote for a bill they were not allowed to have admendments added to...
nobody would do that...
rhe dems certainly would not...

Posted by: DwightCollins | August 21, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The real message from Obama is donate to Democrats and not to Republicans. That is, afterall, the message from the union bosses and the super-wealthy Hollywood liberals.

Posted by: bethg1841 | August 21, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Moreover to all of the idiots who cannot see the forest for the trees...

America was flourishing since about 1991, in boom times correct? Housing prices were records, business revenues and expenses were at record highs and small business flourished just as big business did. No arguments there right?

So, why is it that we now have to have a small business legislation, otherwise small businesses everywhere will be devastated?

Why were the teachers unfunded until they passed the bill last week?

They were all doing fine two years ago...so if everything will be normal soon and we are in a strong recovery as the President resonates so often, why are these legislations so essential to our survival?

Because this entire term of office for Obama, the Democrats and their Republican opponents is about consolidation of party political power and marketing research on the American people to see what you will believe, what you will become angry about and what they can do to you and your friends before you step up to the plate in true opposition.

So many smart people in this country who don't have a clue what's really going on even though the FACTS are always present, even if never detailed by these criminals on both sides of the political spectrum.

Posted by: TheFreeMan | August 21, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Lets see...would it be better for campaign contributions from unions and special interest groups or companies?? Especially when Obama steals fro business and investors and give it to the unions?

hmmm I imagine there aren't many business's going to donate to the dems any more. Few exceptions like GE and those who are in the tank

Posted by: Straightline | August 21, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

So, let's get this right...

Obama thinks there isn't a problem with his own campaign setting the historical record for most spending at just shy of $1 billion, but it is a problem if you don't tell anyone where the $1 billion came from?

This argument is not about money or disclosure...this argument is about the Democratic party losing a great deal of campaign funding to the Republicans because of their flawed policies and constant berating of corporate America.

When people are constantly used as the butt of your jokes and the exemplary villian, they will begin to move against your interests...a lesson for the Saviour in office who hasn't a clue what he's doing any better than GW Bush during his reign of idiocy and irresponsibility.

Posted by: TheFreeMan | August 21, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

small-business legislation:

Congress could have voted on it before recess...but like everything else, they stall. Senate takes a year to argue any issue and now they take a vacation so small businesses have to wait.

Party of NO... Get over it.
We can pass a bill within 24 for war, but can't do anything about important bills that are needed now.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | August 21, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama sounding the alarm bells about campaign finance reform is a real hoot considering he shattered the donation record in '08 and did so in complete secrecy since he bypassed matching funds.

Posted by: 0460 | August 21, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Politico as the source. As they say, "There's your problem."

Not unlike you, Politico has a problem mixing facts with fantasy.

The fact remains, Obama accepted no corporate or PAC contributions during his presidential campaign.

Politico intentionally distorts the truth by listing individual contributions from BP or other oil company employees to Obama's presidential campaign as being from the corporations.

I challenge you to go to the source, the Federal Election Commission-- http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norcansea.shtml
--and find even a single contribution to Obama's presidential campaign from a corporation or PAC.

Posted by: converse | August 21, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

If Obama really believes what he is saying he will swear off all corporate donations for himself and his fellow Dems. The truth is he has been the biggest benefactor of corporate donations, particularly the wall street "fat cats' he publicly castigates so often. It also might be quite interesting how much Obama and the Dems have received from BP the last several years. Again, where is the investigative reporters when you need them?

Posted by: countryfirst1 | August 21, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

In defense of my statement I dug up a little evidence...there is more.

For the record, I voted for the President and I am in favor of campaign reform.

Politico Bombshell: 'Obama Biggest Recipient of BP Cash'

By Noel Sheppard
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 10:18 ET

Headline:"Obama Biggest Recipient of BP Cash."

"While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they've taken from the oil and gas giant over the years," Erika Lovley's piece began.
"BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics," she continued.
"During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records."


Posted by: friar1944 | August 21, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

You're facts are wrong, friar.

Obama accepted no corporate or PAC contributions during his campaign. You may be confusing individual donations from people who work at BP with corporate contributions.

Given that, are you saying that people who work at certain companies shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

Posted by: converse | August 21, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

My personal opinion is,

"If British Petroleum is an example, you would have to believe the President. They donated billions to all candidates, even President Obama. Strangely, they did not have an audit or a safety inspection for years.

Campaign donations on such a huge scale are constantly being made by large corporations, foreign and domestic, and could well be the greatest threat to the Republic since the Civil War.

In my eyes, it is a wholesale sell out of our voting power. Politicians make promises that their constituents want to hear. They put on fantastic shows for the public, rallying their support. When they win, they promptly march off to Washington and forget the voters that sent them there. From then on, the elected begin to repay their base of large contributors by voting for issues that favor them.. not US.

No sentient free thinking individual could believe that some large heartless business giant donates huge sums to hundreds of candidates because they like their politics. They give to Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike because they expect something in return. Even Foreign Governments do it. The sad fact is... They get what they are after.

Open your eyes...it's a sell out on a grand scale. When it is done on a small scale it is called, "A Protection Racket". Gangsters of all types engage in it today.

President Obama is right... This practice needs to stop. Campaign contributions from any source, for any reason, need to be severely limited. Our elected officials are voted into office to represent the people, not the special interests. This past Presidential election has proven that small donations, made by individuals on the internet, can fund a mega-million dollar campaign. Large special interest donations are not needed to continue the democratic process.

If the President actually believes what he is saying, he needs to return all the large corporate campaign contributions that he has received. If he were to start with the money B.P. donated, it would be a fantastic beginning for this effort. A showing on that scale, by our President, would convince the people that he is sincere and rally support for this cause.

I can't wait for it to start."

Posted by: friar1944 | August 21, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

What is Career Training Program? It gives Jobs training for the 21st century, Get a degree in higher education http://bit.ly/a45y6d

Posted by: josephbrant | August 21, 2010 6:48 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company