WaPo POLL: 80% oppose Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing, support congressional fix.

[jefferson_dem]

Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 2010; 7:00 AM

Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

The results suggest a strong reservoir of bipartisan support on the issue for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are in the midst of crafting legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the high court's decision. Likely proposals include banning participation in U.S. elections by government contractors, bank bailout recipients or companies with more than 20 percent foreign ownership.

<SNIP>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151_pf.html

[FormerDittoHead]

1. 80%? It only would take 1%, but they'd have to be the 1% who control things...

...the 19% who believe that we are in the "end times" and that GW Bush was a good President will simply believe what they hear on radio and see on Fox.

on edit: grammar, not good taste.

[deminks]

2. Doesn't matter. What Wall Street wants, Wall Street gets above all else.

They just start shoveling more money at the deciders.

[no limit]

3. So where the hell is the consitutional amendment?

[karynnj]

6. As the article says, people are working on it

Conyers and Donna Edwards have introduced a bill in the House. Kerry and others have spoke of doing so in the Senate. As it is very hard to get the 2/3rds in each house and ratification in 38 states (3/4), great care needs to be taken to write the best bill possible - after all,if it works, this is amending the Constitution.

I suspect that the approval will go down as the RW is already smearing those wanting to counter the SC decision. (look at the comments here - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32988_Page2.html

[no limit]

7. Let the right wing get on TV and explain why this decision is good.

[NYC Liberal]

15. They'll claim that an amendment against corporate "speech"

will somehow destroy small "mom and pop" businesses. It's total bullshit of course, but watch for it.

[ShadowLiberal]

16. Nah, they'll be even more outrageous then that

You underestimate them, just look at how jerks are calling a bill to add regulation safeguards to our financial institutions a $4 trillion dollar bailout, the most outrageous lie ever, especially considering those financial institutions that would get this fictional '$4 trillion bailout' strongly oppose the bill.

Point being, they won't say an amendment like that would kill mom and pop businesses, they'll say preventing corporations from spending unlimited amounts of cash helping people get elected would make lobbyists pump 'trillions' of dollars into the pockets of politicians whom they corrupt, as if that problem didn't get worse from corporate spending on elections.

[Bullet1987]

4. I wonder who that other 20% represent?

Anyway, this could become a very major problem for Obama and the Democrats during re-election time. But not just them, Congress as well because they're the ones who would have to fix it. There is no way to play down the decision, it's incredibly unconstitutional and immoral in a Democracy. Something HAS to be done about it.

[JoeyT]

8. Freepers and people like them

that think that it will level the playing field.

Yes, they're really making that argument.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Let's be fair here - unions also liked the ruling.

Not as much as corporations, mind you, but they do like it.

[karynnj]

5. You would never quess that if you looked at the comments on this Politico article

of Kerry speaking of a Constitutional amendment. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32988_Page2.html

[harkadog]

9. The poll is ridiculous

First 99.9% of the American people, including most who post about it on DU, have never even read the decision.

Second the decision did not allow "unfettered corporate political spending." Corporations have NEVER had limits on how much they could spend on politics just some limits on where and when they could do it. Most of those limits have been untouched by the ruling.

Third people forget DU is a corporation. It is a corporation where almost all of its expenses go to further political aims -- namely furthering Democratic party candidates and causes. Any of the proposed restrictions on corporations would cause a corporation like DU to go out of business. Dumb, dumb.

[depakid]

11. Interesting, because not long ago, people were citing another poll showing 65% supported it!

:crazy:

[Blue Owl]

12. Ah, democracy

Sweet, manufactured democracy.

And don't forget -- we also have the Supreme Court working against the people's will, too!

[Cha]

13. The more this ruling is exposed and people

know about it the better!

"On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled to spend unlimited funds in our elections. The First Amendment was never intended to protect corporations.

This cannot stand. Join our campaign to protest this decision. Protect our democracy! Free speech is for people — not corporations."

Sign The Petition~
http://freespeechforpeople.org/petition

[harkadog]

17. Your first bold sentence is completely false

The SC made no such ruling. The four justices who were in dissent would laugh at that interpretation.

[Cha]

18. No, it's you who doesn't know what's up.

[harkadog]

19. Have you read the ruling?

I have. Tell me the section where they made that ruling you refer to. I won't hold my breath waiting.

[spanone]

14. i guess that means congress won't do squat

[Kablooie]

20. The only solution is a Constitutional amendment and our "representatives" could never do that.

and after a few years of intense corporate intrusion into the election process, there won't be a single politician that would go anywhere near changing this situation.