
Obama Slams Citizens United Ruling
In this weekend's YouTube address, President Obama excoriated the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizen's United case, which overturned a century of previous law to allow corporations to directly spend money to campaign in elections:
"We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans," said Obama. "And we don't intend to. When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with Members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision. We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done."
Boehner Hails 'Political Rebellion' Against Democrats
In this weekend's Republican YouTube, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) celebrated the victory of Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-MA), as part of a "political rebellion" against the Democrats' agenda:
"For months now, a political rebellion has been brewing - one born from the American people's opposition to greater government control over our economy and their lives," Boehner said. "That rebellion propelled Republican Scott Brown to victory in this week's Massachusetts special election. Scott's win in the bluest of blue states gives us new hope that common sense will prevail. That maybe now, the hard work and entrepreneurship of the American people will no longer be stifled by Washington Democrats' costly, job-killing agenda, an agenda Republicans have stood on principle and fought tooth and nail against."
Plouffe To Democrats: 'Fight Like Hell'
In a new guest column in the Washington Post, former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe urges Democrats to get tough, going into this year's elections: "TInstead of fearing what may happen, let's prove that we have more than just the brains to govern -- that we have the guts to govern. Let's fight like hell, not because we want to preserve our status, but because we sincerely believe too many everyday Americans will continue to lose if Republicans and special interests win."
Hayworth Will Challenge McCain In GOP Senate Primary
Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) has announced that he will challenge Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in the Republican primary: "Arizonans have a clear choice -- a clear, commonsense, consistent conservative, or they can remain with a moderate who calls himself a maverick." A recent Rasmussen poll gave McCain a 53%-31% lead over Hayworth among likely GOP primary voters.
Biden: U.S. To Appeal Dismissal Of Blackwater Charges
Vice President Biden visited Iraq Saturday, and announced that the U.S. government will appeal the dismissal of manslaughter charges against Blackwater security guards accused of killing 14 Iraqi civilians in 2007. "The United States is determined, determined to hold accountable anyone who commits crimes against the Iraqi people," Biden said. "While we fully respect the independence and integrity of the U.S. judicial system, we were disappointed by the judge's decision to dismiss the indictment, which was based on the way in which some evidence had been acquired."
Biden Visits Iraq, Endorses Ban On Baath-Linked Candidates
Also during his Iraq visit, Vice President Biden endorsed the ban on candidates linked to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, during a controversy over banned candidates who were suspected of such connections. "I want to make clear I am not here to resolve that issue (of the banned candidates). This is for Iraqis, not for me," said Biden. "I am confident that Iraq's leaders are seized with this issue and are working for a final, just solution. The United States condemns the crimes of the previous regime and we fully support Iraq's constitutional ban on the return to power of Saddam's Baath party."
Pence To Decide Whether To Challenge Bayh
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said he will decide this weekend whether to challenge Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh this year. "Whether it be fiscal responsibility or traditional moral values or a strong defense, the fact that conservatives could get control of one chamber of the Congress in 2010 and begin to restore those principles to government is a very significant opportunity and a serious opportunity," said Pence. "So we're weighing those things. ... Karen and I are going to take the weekend, take a hard look at it, commit the matter to prayer and try and make a decision in the near future."
Coakley: 'I Wasn't Successful In This Race, And I Do Feel Very Bad About That'
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) reflected on her loss to Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown in this past week's Massachusetts special Senate election, in an interview with the Boston Globe. "In the end, I know who I am," said Coakley. "I'm very comfortable with what I care about and what I work for. The bad news is ... I wasn't successful in this race, and I do feel very bad about that for the work that needs to go on."
shooter242
January 23, 2010 1:21 PM
It just amazes me how people are against free speech. Tsk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
January 23, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to shooter242
Amazes me to. Repukes are soooo against free speech. Amazing we agree on something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 23, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to shooter242
See, here's the part you guys, including the geniuses on the Supreme Court, don't seem to get. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT ACTUALLY PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!
Corporations are legal fictions. They are pure intellectual constructs. They exist solely to allow groups of natural persons--actual human beings with actual pulses--to undertake economically risky ventures without putting everything they own at stake, to make it easier for them to adjust and value ownership stakes, and make those stakes easier to buy and sell. Through a legal fiction it embues these associations of individuals to take on some of the attributes of personhood--primarily the right to sue and be sued and own property--because we find it economically and socially useful to do so.
BUT THEY ARE NOT REAL PEOPLE!!!!!!! They act by and through their officers, directors and, theoretically (almost entirely so), their shareholders. Each and every one of those people has all the rights granted by the Constitution, including the right to engage in political speech and vote if they are U.S. citizens, because, and I know this is tricky, so pay close attention here, THEY ARE REAL PEOPLE!!!!!!
To let these people, particularly the managment of a company, speak with their own money and also buy themselves more speech with the money of their shareholders is just wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
January 23, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Bears repeating over and over. Thanks, Steve
=D
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stratofrog
January 23, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to Bwakfat
"CORPORATIONS ARE NOT ACTUALLY PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!"
Ha! Technically they may qualify as conspiracies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
January 23, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to Bwakfat
It also should be noted that a corporation can't go to jail, regardless of its behavior.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 23, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to Bwakfat
So... only individuals are allowed free speech? Gosh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to shooter242
Last time I checked yes.
Cars, clocks, chickens, and even dogs don't get a vote.
But I bet my cat would be a little smarter at the ballot box than some of these redneck teabaggers. "Get yer gubmint hands off my medicare!" Smart!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 23, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Sorry bud, but you can't decide some organizations can speak and others can't. As for stockholders, if they don't like what management does, they are free to sell. Freedom is a wonderful thing, you should investigate the concept.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
January 23, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to shooter242
Problem is that the "stockholders" are now huge funds, including pension funds. Individuals don't really own the stocks, like they don't have any say in how the corporations are run. The individual stockholders are meaningless.
Why weren't you whining about freedom when the repukes under the king where systematically taking them away? The king used to get people arrested at his "rallies" if they were dissenters or exercising their free speech rights. They would arrest and beat protesters exercising their free speech rights. That's all ok, but stop corporations from stealing money from shareholders to be able to steel more money from taxpayers that's taking away free speech rights?
The hypocrisy is astounding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 6:05 PM in reply to shooter242
Stockholders have MORE free speech?
So free speech is determined by assets?
Say, can corporations go to jail? Can they vote?
"Freedom" for the rich and powerful to dominate is oppression.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
January 23, 2010 6:23 PM in reply to shooter242
In order to keep that charter, the corporations agree to various rules and restrictions on their behavior, and this has been true around the world (including the USA) for as long as there have been corporations. Which, incidentally, is a lot longer than there has been a USA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 24, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to shooter242
So, let me see if I get you. You guys were always outraged because teh yooyins were using their members dues money to engage in political activity, but it's A-OK for the corporations to use their stockholder's money to do the same thing, notwithstanding the fact that union members share a hell of a lot more commonality of interest than the shareholders of a public corporation.
Let the shareholders vote on whether to use corporate funds on political activity, and indeed, give shareholders a tenth of the power that union members have over the activities of corporations, and I'll buy it. Otherwise, it's just kleptocracy--management using shareholder money to pump their own interests which may be inimicable to those of their shareholders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 24, 2010 1:08 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Right. Like union guys vote on how the leadership uses their money. The really funny part is how unions are kicking you to the curb, to avoid taxes.
For your interest and edification I recommend Greenwald. Yes it could happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 24, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to shooter242
You're not terribly knowledgeable about unions if you think members don't have a vote in how money is spent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 25, 2010 5:29 AM in reply to shooter242
This is completely all over the map. "Deciding which organizations get to speak?" And then pivot to "freedom"? This is sophistry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
January 23, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to shooter242
personally, i'm shocked. i would have pegged you has a hater of activist judges ... there haven't been many SCOTUS decisions more activist than this one, that i'm aware of.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203897.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 23, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to nova voter
It's likely that as more information about the decision comes out, you'll moderate your opinion. I notice that Marcus relies on the "general funds" theme. If so it applies to every organization, not just corporations. Equal treatment is a bitch, no?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gotalife
January 23, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to shooter242
con talking point.
Now they say it will bring transparency.
Gullible corporate sheep.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 23, 2010 1:21 PM
According to Boehner the Bush years never happened. His rubber stamp to the Bush spending without paying for it is a myth. That the economy was destroyed under Bush was a mere blip - it's all on Obama and the libruls.
And the Dems keep letting him get away with that talk.
And Plouffe - the Dems are fighting - with each other. And obviously proving that they don't have the brain to govern. They don't know how to be anything other than the opposition. Progressives are in opposition of their own party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
January 23, 2010 1:56 PM
I hope George Soros starts working on his Sarah Palin movie as soon as possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
January 23, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to expat46
Nah, I hope not. There is an old saying, even bad publicity is good publicity. The rambo lovers wouldn't watch it or believe what was in it and would love rambo even more.
Just ignore the buffoon. Any attacks she uses to gin up her supporters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ChrisP
January 23, 2010 3:09 PM
Can some one more knowledgeable in the laws answer a couple of questions about the ramifications of the SCOTUS ruling?
Can China (or any other govt.) set up a corporation here, (China Inc.) and pump unlimited funds into elections? Is there any way for the origins of the money to be legally hidden?
Can a broadcast company now legally refuse to sell airtime to a candidate, or give free airtime to a candidate?
If a bank is set up and ten people buy $1,000 worth of stock and the bank decides to spend $5000 on elections, causing the stock to loose half it’s value, is that legal?
Banks use deposits to loan out at interest etc., is part of that money operational?
How much of every dollar, if any, I deposit in a bank can be legally used in elections now?
Do you think the first thing to go will be corporate taxes, or something else?
Is there any realistic way that this new financing cluster**** can be fixed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
January 23, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to ChrisP
On China, yes. Basically, foreign companies and governments have been involved in "free speech" for decades.
On the money being "legally" hidden, yes.
On a broadcast company, yes. They can do what ever they want. Faux entertainment bypasses the reciprocity on free airtime already. The equal free airtime is bull.
On the bank, yep.
It's not your dollar in theory that can be used. It's what they make off of your dollar and it's as much as they want.
Corporations don't pay taxes by and large already. It's just the little people that pay taxes.
Nope, this financing cluster**** made sure that it won't be fixed. There is no way politicians will try to stop this flood of The only way to fix all the cluster****s is to call for a constitutional convention by the people and throw out the piece of paper that repukes and their allies have used as toilet paper since 1980. Time to start over again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ChrisP
January 23, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to Michael A
Thanks. (I thinks we may be boned.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
January 23, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to ChrisP
"Boned" is such an ugly term. Can we just say "repositioned"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 23, 2010 3:34 PM
Whether it be fiscal responsibility or traditional moral values or a strong defense
The fact that a Republican, can, with a straight face, talk about fiscal responsibility and traditional moral values is a testament to how badly Democrats have lost the message war.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SleepinJeezus
January 24, 2010 8:30 AM in reply to CT Voter
A very astute observation, unfortunately. These guys should have been marginalized right off the electoral map in response to their failures to govern. Instead, wimps like Obama ran for cover every time an assault against common sense and factual history were made by these asshats, and we are now left with a FAUX(News) reality wherein up is down and Mad Hatters rule over populist tea parties.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gotalife
January 23, 2010 4:52 PM
He said our democracy is under attack.
Where are the con tea parties?
The SOTU will be awesome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
January 23, 2010 5:30 PM
Forceful AND bipartisan, huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jim43
January 23, 2010 5:34 PM
Funny that Obama has a problem with private funding of campaigns now that his own privately funded campaign is over...
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 6:09 PM
I love how judicial activism by the rightwing is not judicial activism. Overturning popular laws created by the congresss over a century, expressing the will of the people .... just "calling balls and strikes", right John Roberts?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
January 23, 2010 8:34 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
That was exactly my first thought too.
IOKIYAR, the judicial branch version. Sadly and infuriatingly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 10:40 PM in reply to geofu54
"legislating from the bench"!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 25, 2010 5:33 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
No, it's "freedom" are told.
We have really got 5 winners up there now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 24, 2010 8:03 PM
I wish that the other wanna be rebuttal did not follow the Obama weekly address. It's terrific that Obama speeches are getting syndication on the television.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 8:09 PM
According to Boehner the Bush years never happened. His rubber stamp to the Bush spending without paying for it is a myth. That the economy was destroyed under Bush was a mere blip - it's all on Obama and the libruls.
And the Dems keep letting him get away with that talk.
And Plouffe - the Dems are fighting - with each other. And obviously proving that they don't have the brain to govern. They don't know how to be anything other than the opposition. Progressives are in opposition of their own party.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?