Unions, Liberal Groups Urge Dem Leaders To Think Big In Campaign Finance Fight
Dear Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid: If you’re going to go to war with corporations over that Supreme Court decision, do it right.
That’s the message in a letter that a powerful coalition of liberal groups and unions have fired off to Pelosi and Reid, urging them to seize on the SCOTUS decision allowing corporate money to fund elections to deal a death blow to the influence of big money in politics — by approving public financing of campaigns.
With the President using his bully pulpit to rally the public against the SCOTUS ruling, the groups — which include SEIU, MoveOn, People for the American Way and many others — think the court’s decision actually presents them with an opportunity.
The letter they’ve sent to Reid and Pelosi, to be released this afternoon, urges them to adopt a measure called the Fair Elections Now Act, which has 129 co-sponsors in the House and would enact public financing of federal elections. Campaign finance reform types say the act would give candidates the option to run for office on a mixture of small contributions and limited public funds — strengthening campaigns funded by grassroots fundraising and undercutting the power of large corporate donors.
You should seize the opportunity provided by the Citizens United decision to advance solutions to address the comprehensive problem of money in politics. Only policies like Fair Elections will reduce voter concerns about the influence of campaign donors, just as Congress did with post-Watergate reforms a generation ago. The path forward lies with small-donor democracy, not increased corporate dominance in Washington.
In closing, we encourage you to use your leadership role to push forward the Fair Elections Now Act as the part of the solution to address the potential problems created in the wake of the Citizens United decision. The time is now to strengthen voter participation in our democracy through a small-donor based public funding system.
The kicker: The companion version of this legislation in the Senate was co-sponsored by a former Senator named Barack Obama.
It’s unclear what course of action Obama will take in going to war against the SCOTUS decision. But this measure has bipartisan support, and Obama’s own rise to power was fueled by precisely the types of donations this bill is designed to enhance. So these groups are hoping that if Obama wants to make this one of the defining crusades of his presidency, he’ll be persuaded to get it right.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Wow…this is O/T, but the President just got totally caught off guard by a question in Tampa. A tough question about us upholding humanitarian values while still supporting Isreal and how they deal with Palestine. He had to stall for time to figure out a way to navigate the mine-field.
Congrats, that’s the most difficult on-the-spot question I’ve seen asked of the President since he took office. It came from a STUDENT. The rest of the DC media should take a lesson. Maybe if they could start actually asking hard questions of ALL politicans, this country could turn itself around much faster.
O I think he’ll get this right. He wouldn’t have stood there in the SOTU and said what he said if he didn’t intend to get this right.
I think we should just implement it in a manner that Justice Alito would approve of.
I propose that we outlaw all elections, and just poll Corporations on who they want to represent them in Legislatures, both state and national.
How does this gibe with Obama’s own refusal/backtrack to accept public financing after the primary?
“How does this gibe with Obama’s own refusal/backtrack to accept public financing after the primary?”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
” But this measure has bipartisan support”
Really?
I suspect that at one point, it had bipartisan support, but Republicans will now find a way to oppose it, and paint Obama as caving to those nasty wide-eyed liberals.
Greg, I will posit to you that no Constitutional scholar would stand in front of the SCOTUS and say in affect: what you just did is s*h*i*t on the constitution and we’re going to fix it, if he didn’t mean it.
And the face that there is bipartisan support for this and that anyone who bucks trying to fix is going to look pretty icky to the voters, I have thought from the start that this would in fact result in even better legislation than McCain-Feingold, which had almost more loopholes than there was actual statute.
I totally messed up that last paragraph-
The fact that there is bipartisan support for this is out there and anyone who tries to obstruct this kind of legislation is not going to be able to explain that to voters.
“…by approving public financing of campaigns.”
Didn’t Obama make a decision to forego public financing…and then raked in oodles of money that was almost impossible to track? How can he possibly have ANY credibility on this?
Again:
Mammon worshipping Republicans have now completely embraced FASCISM, by definition:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/fascism-coming-to-a-court_b_226256.html
Activist right wing Supreme Court Judge’s opinions that Corporations should be given free reign in America is Fascism, by definition.
Worse, right wingers here are actively defending FOREIGN MONEY to corruptly influence American politics.
(from the broken record department)
The Fascist Five right wing activist Supreme Court Judges just rewrote over 100 years of established and settled law in their active service to Corporate money, and even FOREIGN Corporate money:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/reformers_court_decision_creates_huge_opening_for.php
Again:
Right wingers and conservatives with any loyalty to America would recognize this is a HUGE threat to America’s democratic republic.
Tena:
“I will posit to you that no Constitutional scholar would stand in front of the SCOTUS and say in affect: what you just did is s*h*i*t on the constitution and we’re going to fix it, if he didn’t mean it.”
Well, no one ever has accused Obama of being a Constitutional Scholar, have they?
Just like no one will ever accuse him of being a great President, for calling on the Congress to commit seppuku by passing a Health Care Reform Act that the public CLEARLY does not like.
You know, just because you keep repeating a lie, doesn’t mean it turns into truth.
The public very much approves of components of HCR, even if people continue to deny that.
“fascism is: “A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.””
Well Goddamn! You finally got it!
Haven’t I been telling you that myself for weeks?
Yes, people who know nothing about the Constitution always teach Constitutional Law.
It’s a tradition.
O/T: J.D. Salinger dies.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584170,00.html
Obama did not teach Constitutional Law.
marybel, anyone who can use teh internetz can find out where Obama’s campaign cash came from.
Here’s a fun place to start.
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/
Obama has actually been working behind the scenes in anticipation of the CU ruling – his staff has been meeting with Dem leaders in Congress and advocacy groups about what kind of legislation would be proposed when SCOTUS handed its ruling down. They have a lot of good ideas in mind, prior shareholder approval of corporate political expenditures, being probably the best, but after his rebuke of SCOTUS last night Obama said nary a word about campaign finance reform. Totally wasted opportunity.
He’s going to have to be vocal and forceful in pushing CFR if he actually cares at all about it, much more so than he has been with health care reform. I’d like to see him get behind Alan Grayson’s “Save Our Democracy” platform, but that’s a fantasy that I don’t see coming to pass.
Dead at 91 one. Much too soon, and I was so looking forward to his next book.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
# sbj | January 28th, 2010 at 02:48 pm
Obama did not teach Constitutional Law.
Trollus pilisplitticus No, he just taught Due Process and Equal Protection.
SMH
Tena: you mean there aren’t courses called “constitutional law”????? Holy cow!
Pelosi is on the ball.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/pelosi-to-move-insurance-industry-antitrust-bill.php
A local St. Pete Times made a cogent point which I believe I also heard on KO or some other cable show.
He pointed out that there is already too much powerful interest money in our elections and that we’re not likely to get rid of it soon. The solution in his mind was to strive for ABSOLUTE transparency. No hiding behind PAC’s etc.
And as for corporate giving make them ID their spots just like the politicians are currently required. Can you imagine a spot against a candidate who supported clean energy…a real nightmare for the Saudi’s whose economic existence depends on continued use of fossil fuels. The the spot would simply be tagged by..
I’m King Fuad Chairmen of the Board of Aramco. My Board of Directors approved and paid for the preceding message.
CT Voter – sbj never saw a hair he couldn’t split – stick around, that was nothing.
“Q Why is the President blocking habeas corpus from prisoners at Bagram? I thought he taught constitutional law. And these prisoners have been there –
MR. GIBBS: You’re incorrect that he taught on constitutional law.”
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/04/transcript_briefing_by_wh_press_secretary_robert_g.php
Dems came into power with one overriding but unpublicized battle cry: “Where’s mine?”. Their failure on healthcare reform is directly attributable to their insistence that insurance industry profits be maintained as a starting point in the negotiations. Why? So that in the future they will receive kickbacks of these profits disguised as campaign gifts from the corrupt industry they fought to preserve. Does anyone actually believe they are dissatisfied with the “Citizens United” ruling? This is all political theater. Nothing will be changed by this administration.
Bilgeman,
I was NOT happy w/Obama’s refusal of public financing. That said, He IS the President whether OR NOT “YOU” like it, AND he IS a constitutional scholar…WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE IT.
Now, can we get back to something important, like stopping fascism? Corporations are buying your Reps and YOU DON’T CARE? Is that because you’re afraid to lose your job? Is it because you don’t realize it? OR, is it because you are PART OF THE CORP PROBLEM?
Just love all the anonymous support for corps…..from ppl who are probably corporate CEO’s, lol!
NO little ol’ worker would EVER support the corporate agenda…yet somehow, Repubs think if it’s bad for Dems it’s good for them. Fools.
sbj – Give it a rest. If he frakking taught contracts, he still knows more, having gone through Yale Law School and edited the law review, about the Constitution than your average bear.
Just give it a rest. When you go to law school, you learn about the Constitution. OK?
“Give it a rest.”
What? You were wrong, tena.
“What? You were wrong, tena.
”
I was wrong only if Due Process and Equal Protection aren’t Constitutional law courses.
ahem.
Tena, Obama also taught a course on voting rights. You know what this means, don’t you?
He’s obviously the secret head of ACORN.
You know what, tena? I’m wrong. He did teach Con Law III. (I think he graduated from Harvard Law School, though.)
Vice President Joe Biden kicked off President Obama’s town-hall meeting in Tampa, Fla. with his trademark humor. “Thank you all very, very much,” he said to the audience, “It’s amazing the crowds I draw.”
Harvard/Yale – Thanks for the correction.
Jebus
“He’s obviously the secret head of ACORN.”
Well duh.
Just keep it on the downlow about the Re-education camps until their ready for the inmates.
It’s the New World Order, baby.
they’re
dang soundalikes
mfpdx Your points are cogent indeed but you are upset by the same thing that has driven me crazy over the years.
Propagandists like Faux News have brainwashed the dimwits amongst us like Joe the Plumber to vote AGAINST their own interests.
“NO little ol’ worker would EVER support the corporate agenda…”
Alas time and time again they DO JUST THAT! My office manager is married to a former minister. They love Fox.
I’m sure it started with the social issues..mainly abortion and gay marriage..but then they came to believe all the economic BS. They were absolutely certain Obama was going to raise their taxes. When I explained to them they make nothing near 250,000 they looked at me numbly…or should I say dumbly? When the Obama tax cuts came through and showed up in our payroll I immediately went to her and pointed out the SIGNIFICANT amount that remained in her paycheck because Obama cut her taxes. She was just amazed!!!
She didn’t believe it until I showed her the money.
Folks are just not well informed. Imagine trusting a network that has been caught blatantly putting false video of year old rallies to make their recent rally look like something it’s not. This has happened numerous times at Fox. They been caught with cheerleading producers behind reporters prepping the crowd before live shots..when to cheer and make noise..when to relax. This is fine for the Tonight Show but a NEWS REPORT? These people are so clueless they don’t even realize how ignorant they are and we have some of them even posting here.
New Rocky Mountain poll released.
John McCain has sunk to a 40% approval rating in Arizona. That is his lowest level, since the Keating S&L scandal.
He could be in deep trouble, now that a far Right Wing Teabagger type has announced that he is challenging McCain in the primary.
Hey Johnny Mac; try BIOB. Blame it on Barack.
“At one point, one UAW leader (identified as Javier Contreras) yelled at the crowd, telling them to “…Shut the f*ck up, you motherf*ckers!…
Things got so bad, that UAW leaders had to call the police to restore order
http://laborunionreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/uaw-boss-to-nummi-workers-shut-fck-up.html
Wanna read something funny that I’m sure we all noticed at the time, but is a hilarious flash-back?
Check this from FactCheck.org:
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor,” most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was “senior lecturer” and not “professor.”
Is it just me or, professorship aside, was the RNC tacitly admitting that Bush doesn’t respect the Constitution? hahaha
“Hey Johnny Mac; try BIOB. Blame it on Barack.”
O Zing!
OT:
CBS emailed me their party breakdowns from last night’s polls. The Obama boost among Independents appeared to bear out, keeping in mind that the Independents who chose to watch the speech are probably not the hardest of the hardcore anti-Obama set. Still, according to CBS’ figures, the Independents who did tune in were down on Obama’s handling of the economy and health care by significant margins. After watching Obama explain his plans in the speech, a big majority approved of his health care and economic proposals. The numbers shifted for other viewers, too, as we reported. But the results are even more evidence that Obama may have reconnected with Independents last night.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/digging-in-the-insta-polls-obama-sotu-connected-with-viewers.php
Good news, Ethan.
So, um… Citizens United was a constitutional decision by the Court. It wasn’t a statutory interpretation case. They said the First Amendment was violated. Obama, and everyone else, keeps saying that Congress should work on a bill to fix what the Supreme Court screwed up.
They can’t just “fix” it. The majority opinion in CU swept pretty broadly in its language in terms of what regulations the First Amendment prohibits and allows. They’re going to have to craft something weaker than was struck down, that passes muster with the 5-wanker majority of CU. They can’t just “reverse” CU.
So maybe Obama and everyone needs to stop saying, “Yeah, let’s fix what they messed up, let’s undo the damage,” unless they’re proposing a constitutional amendment. Or, they should offer specifics on how they intend to get legislation that doesn’t “violate” the First Amendment by the 5-wanker majority standard in CU.
Is it just me or, professorship aside, was the RNC tacitly admitting that Bush doesn’t respect the Constitution? hahaha
That’s a pretty stupid interpretation.
The unfortunate truth is that many constitutional law professors have no for the Constitution. Obama is no different, although he wasn’t a “real” professor by any stretch.
“So maybe Obama and everyone needs to stop saying, “Yeah, let’s fix what they messed up, let’s undo the damage,” unless they’re proposing a constitutional amendment. Or, they should offer specifics on how they intend to get legislation that doesn’t “violate” the First Amendment by the 5-wanker majority standard in CU.”
Voluntary public financing (of the type urged in the post which begins the thread) doesn’t require a constitutional amendment, nor does it violate the 1st Amendment, in that it doesn’t bar corporations (or anyone) from contributing to any political candidate. All it does is provide a roughly equivalent dollar amount to that candidate’s opponent, thus basically canceling-out the effectiveness of the original contribution. It’s pretty elegant, really.
I’ve already called my Rep and Senators and asked them to support it, and I urge y’all to do likewise.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick,
It would appear that you aren’t aware that Citizens United didn’t change the law regarding contributions. Perhaps you should inform yourself of the basic facts.
The CU v. FEC RADICALLY rewrote the law regarding corporations ability to dump money on elections.
Right wingers should inform themselves of some basic reality.