Obama Slams “Devastating” Supreme Court Decision On Campaign Finance

by Joe Coscarelli | 4:40 pm, January 23rd, 2010

» 10 comments

President Obama used his weekly public address for January 23rd to sidestep the media and hit the Supreme Court directly, calling this week’s 5-4 ruling on campaign finance reform “a victory” for lobbyists, opening “the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy.” Citing his own “historic reforms” to limit the shady “power to tilt the tables,” the President railed against the Court and spoke of repairing “the damage that has been done.”

“Any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time,” said the President of the Court’s decision to overturn the bipartisan McCain Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Obama’s Saturday criticisms will likely set the stage for an administration-led counter attack on Sunday’s news shows where Democrats will attack the Court’s ruling in an attempt to gain the people’s favor in the wake of Martha Coakley’s loss in Massachusetts.

Obama referred to the White House as the “People’s House” and said he could not “think of anything more devastating to the public interests” than overturning a century’s worth of law. He went on to cite energy independence, health care reform and warn that now “foreign entities can mix in our elections.” He referenced Republican president Teddy Roosevelt and promised to “get to work immediately willing to develop a bipartisan response to this decision.”

The address represents a probable media blueprint for a new, populist-tinged strategy, in the form of an offense push, to regain favor for his party and presidency. See the clip below:

Campaign Finance, McCain Feingold, obama, President Obama, Presidential Weekly Address, Supreme Court, White House

sarainitaly

“Any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time,” so says the guy who used PACS and lobbyists to bankroll his white house bid, and who went back on his word and didn’t accept public campaign funding. Instead recieved money from lawyers, lobbyists, the health care and insurance industries. (and people wonder why the health care reform bill sucks…)
SWWT

Lol, maybe he’ll proclaim himself the “People’s President” and lay the smack down on any Republican candy asses, if you smell what he’s cooking of course.

/wwf reference
RazorsEdge

sarain italy:

Are you then stating it was constitutional that Pres. Obama had the bankroll he accepted in WH bid (supporting SCOTUS decision) or SCOTUS decision this week bad because it would look more and more like Pres. Obama’s WH bid?
sarainitaly

i’m saying he sounds like an hypocrite.

i support campaign finance reform, and was mad he didn’t take public financing. and i don’t trust him to do what is best wrt health care reform when he is making secret pharma deals, won’t do tort reform, is giving a gift to insurance companies, and these industries all just happen to have been his biggest donors.
timzank

The supreme court decision won’t change how much money flows to candidates, nor will it change from whom it flows. They just won’t be funneling the $$$ through the 527′s, PAC’s, and bundlers. It’ll actually make it simpler to follow the money.
davebarnes

Freedom of speech.
Yes.
Just improve transparency.
http://www.karlspensen.blogspot.com Karl Spensen

NOTHING makes me happier than knowing that the Invisible Hand of the Market will soon be the hand that steers our ENTIRE POLITICAL DISCOURSE!!!1 Our great Captains of Industry, from Carnegie to Hearst onward, have ALWAYS known what’s BEST for us, and now they can FINALLY have their say!!1 KUDOS to the Supreme Court, who I have ALWAYS dismissed as a bunch of ACTIVIST rabblerousers!!1
RazorsEdge

sarainitaly:

Yes, I was aware you were calling Pres. Obama a hypocrite. I was asking you for a substantive thought on the actual SCOTUS decision.

Pres. Obama does not support the SCOTUS decision and your initial post “seems” to denounce the tactic of accepting special interest and corporate money with this:

‘Instead recieved money from lawyers, lobbyists, the health care and insurance industries. (and people wonder why the health care reform bill sucks…)

So rather than take the assumption you don’t like the SCOTUS decision yourself, I asked. Also gave you the opening to state you agreed with Pres. Obama for using special interest money etc. tactic.

btw: My undersatnding SCOTUS decision does not change how much special interest can donate “directly” to a campaign such as occurred in 2008 elections but opened up the ability for corporations to “spend” political ad dollars in elections.
sarainitaly

sorry, i didn’t understand your original post. I thought it was hypocritical of Obama to use special interst money to get where he was, and then denounce special interest money. he kept pretending to be against it, but it was all smoke and mirrors.

I am not sure how I feel about the SCOTUS ruling. I can see the pros and cons. The point that the media is allowed to influence public opinion, but other businesses aren’t is a valid point (GE controlled msnbc can influence all they want…). But I also worry about big business drowning out certain candidates because of certain issues (which, wrt media i guess is already happening). I also think if it forces transparency, it is a better option than people hiding behind 527s and PACs… With Obama’s recent attacks on banks/big business I can see why he would be againt this. haha I don’t think the Hillary Clinton film was fair. But….MM had the 9/11 film. I also know how Hollywood uses their influence, which can be unfair, and it is huge business. Freedom of speech is one thing, but I worry about the free flow of big business money, and where it could lead.

I can see how this could have some benefits, but I can also see how this could lead to even more massive distortions, and inequality.

I think the whole thing has gotten way out of control. A billion dollars to get elected, plus 527s, PACS, etc, and now big business can throw in billions of dollars, to serve their best interest…. I can understand the want of big business to get their opinions out there, but I worry about where that will lead. But I also don’t like that the media has so much influence and it is pretty evident which way they lean. So…. I am still undecided. hahaa

Talking myself through this, I am definitely thinking about the unfair advantage media owning corportations have. And I saw that this past primary, BIG time. So…perhaps it is a more fair option. However, I am still concerned about where this could lead.

“btw: My undersatnding SCOTUS decision does not change how much special interest can donate “directly” to a campaign such as occurred in 2008 elections but opened up the ability for corporations to “spend” political ad dollars in elections.”
That’s what I thought.
J Baustian

Obama is in most respects a typical ACLU lawyer. Is he aware that the ACLU was a “friend of the court” on the plaintiff’s side? Obama is siding with the pro-censorship position.