E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS“President Barack Obama says the nation should consider mobilizing behind a constitutional amendment process to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that loosened restrictions on money in politics,” the AP writes.
Obama’s not watching the GOP convention. "When the TV is on and the President is in the room, it's usually ESPN," said White House press secretary Jay Carney, per USA Today.
Leave a Comment:
I agree, time to remove the power of Citizens United and the ruling that has given those with mega bucks the power to purchase elections. If we really want fair and honest elections we need to do something about all this money and a good start would be to have mandatory equal advertising time in each radio and TV station in every market at no cost to the national candidate, newspapers should also contribute by equal size and placed ads. There are a lot of really good people who will not win elections (of either or both parties) due to all the outside money. Once I learn a candidate is taking money from outside my area I am immediately on track to vote against them, we have a local state house candidate who has a big pac out of Nashville sending money and I'm thinking that will not go over very well in our area - hope so at least. This is the country where we are to have government by the people for the people, not by the money for the corporation or for the money.
I would mobilize to overturn Citizen's United. Fired up and ready to go on that one.
Mr. President, take the lead. Announce at the convention of the people that they should donate to your campaign through offical, "legal" measures. Decry the faux, free speech, unlimited, personhood/corporation entities called the Super Pacs. Start by not promoting Obama superpacs or accept or agree with ads coming from those destructors of our election process.
I think we all can agree with this one. Level the paying field, give them a limit, and let them show us how well they manage that money.
I am not sure how it would look if Obama makes a big deal about Citizen's United, the Republicans will bring up the pledge Obama broke in the 2008 election.
"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Not only did he break his pledge, he went on to break records for campaign contribution in 2008, and predicted that he would raise $1 billion dollars in contributions for the 2012 election.
Theotas, I totally agree. This has gotten out of hand. Both sides are supported by unseen sources of seemingly unlimited money to buy politicians with. Citizens United needs to be overturned and a limit placed on campaign spending. You are right when you say we need to see how they handle the money. Besides most of the campaign ads are lies anyway. I want fewer of them.
Candidates should be allowed to publish their platform in the paper, and run a few ads on TV, citing ONLY their platform. They should not be allowed to blather about alot of garbage no one wants to hear, and most are lies anyway. And the incumbent President should not be allowed to take campaign trips all over the country and claim it's government business as the liar in chief has done for 3 years. Candidates who get caught lying should be immediately banned from running for any political office ever again and be fined $100,000.
What are the justices doing during the campaign season? They cannot possibly ignore the impact billionaires are having on swaying public opinion. We all get just one vote, but we lost an equal voice with passage of Citizen's United.
Politico: TAMPA, Fla. — Tea party star and Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz said this morning that current campaign finance laws should be scrapped to allow unlimited donations directly to campaigns.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80441.html?hp=r1
I wish Obama would tell Americans his evil plans for the country if he miraculously gets re-elected. Instead of blaming Lincoln, Adams, Bush and whoever for his inability to lead. Or playing the race card, or saying wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, republicans won't let me do anything, wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Republicans block him because his ideas suck. And will bankrupt the country.
Right, he disregards the Constitution when he doesn't agree with it (such as the enumerated powers clause), disregards congress and bypasses them when it suits his purposes (too many examples to mention), and now wants to create an amendment to the Constitution to limit who can advertise or endorse a presidential candidate... show's just how frustrated he really is at the thought of losing his throne, come November. Do you think if he were really ahead in the polls or his attack ads were having the effect he wanted them to that he would have even brought the subject up...? Think about it... he's failed for 4 years, and now his campaign of smear and lies is failing... of course he wants to take away the oppositions bullets... remember his comment about bringing a gun to a knife fight? Seems he brought one loaded with a lot of blanks... so now he wants an amendment.... boo-hoo... just admit it, he's thin skinned, a sore loser and a cry-baby
Uncle,
[ … and now wants to create an amendment to the Constitution to limit who can advertise or endorse a presidential candidate … ]
So YOU don’t believe in the Constitution that provides for amendments as has been used successfully 27 times. ??
It is a process that ultimately puts the decision in the hands of the voters. It does NOT involve the President, his signature is not needed or solicited. It requires a two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate. Once it passes Congressional voting it the goes to the States where three-quarters of the states (currently 38 states) must pass (ratify) the amendment before it can become part of the Constitution as were the first ten amendments known as “The Bill of Rights”.
Even though they're benefitting from it handsomely, I think the votes in Congress and from the states will be overwhelmingly in favor of this change. But be prepared for a 24 hour a day onslaught of commercials funded by every big-money constituency telling us our speech is being infringed and showing people being arrested at gunpoint for speaking their minds. A better analogy would be to show Joe the Plumber speaking his mind on the street corner, and then being run down by a loudspeaker-covered 18-wheeler which is blaring, "Don't let the government take away your right to be heard! They know that one voice can be ignored, but when we all join together we must be listened to." And of course, Joe the Plumber quietly groans his last under the semi, while the loudspeakers boast they will never be silenced. - - - - - - That's the commercial we should be shown, but never will.
This is all well and good in theory, but how would such an amendment actually be written? The problem lies, and this was the supreme court's argument, is that a corporation is a free assembly of people... If the courts would have prohibited their ability to speak (ie: Produce TV Ads), it would be a violation of the first amendment. If they limited corporations, they could limit other things (ie: people) or things (ie: how we speak). That's the problem with Citizens United, is there isn't really a workable solution around it, baring removing the first amendment, and that isn't really an option I would want to explore.
What if it was written in a way that did require limitations on funds but required disclosure because it affects elections and democracy?