With A Stroke Of His Pen Obama Strikes Back At Citizens United

[Ian David]

With A Stroke Of His Pen Obama Strikes Back At Citizens United

A little over a year ago the Supreme Court of the United States made a controversial ruling that says corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. The case known as Citizens United v Federal Election Commission allows corporations to use their general funds to buy campaign ads that was prohibited under federal law, and opened the door for unlimited contributions by corporations as well as unions. The high court cited the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of the right of free speech, and it was the first time a corporate entity was treated like a person. Detractors of the ruling cried foul and correctly pointed out that, “The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.” The ruling also opened the door for foreign governments to affect the outcome of United States elections.

There was an attempt to assuage the damage from Citizens United in the form of the Disclose Act that passed in the Democratic controlled House last year but failed in the Senate because Democrats couldn’t muster the super majority needed to overcome Republican’s filibuster threat. The failed legislation provided tough new disclosure rules for groups that invest in the election process. President Obama summed up the necessity of the Disclose Act calling it “a critical piece of legislation to control the flood of special interest money into our elections,” and, “that it mandates unprecedented transparency in campaign spending, and it ensures that corporations who spend money on American elections are accountable first and foremost to the American people.” Since Republicans are enamored with the notion of unlimited special interest money without transparency or accountability, it was not surprising they threatened to filibuster the measure. The 2010 midterm elections confirmed Americans’ fears with money from special interest groups and corporations flooding the airwaves with fallacious assertions and inaccurate characterizations of everything from the health law to socialist tendencies of Democratic candidates. It appeared that since the Disclose Act failed, elections would be bought by the highest bidder for years to come, but a report today gives some hope that democracy is not dead in America; yet.

On Wednesday it was reported that President Obama was drafting an executive order that would require companies pursuing federal contracts to disclose political contributions that have been secret under the Citizen’s United ruling. A senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Hans A. von Spakovsky, lambasted the proposed executive order saying that, “The draft order tries to interfere with the First Amendment rights of contractors.” Mr. von Spakovsky dutifully made all the right-wing, neo-con arguments including bringing Planned Parenthood and unions into the discussion. The draft order did not exempt any entity from disclosure rules and presents a reasonable requirement on contractors seeking government contracts. Several states have similar “pay to play” laws to prevent businesses from using unlimited donations to buy lucrative state contracts from slimy legislators. Thus far the only legislator who has railed against the proposed order was Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). McConnell called the proposal an “outrageous and anti-Democratic abuse of executive branch authority,” and went on to say, “Just last year, the Senate rejected a cynical effort to muzzle critics of this administration and its allies in Congress.”

<snip>

The real objection Republicans and the Heritage Foundation have with the order is that it removes the possibility of corporate money influencing government more than it already does. The Citizens’ United ruling was a gift to Republicans who do the bidding of corporations in exchange for campaign contributions and it became obvious after reports that two Supreme Court Justices attended a secret Koch Industries strategy meeting prior to voting to extend free speech rights to corporations just in time for the 2010 midterm campaigns.

More:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-citizens-united

[Matariki]

1. Good move.

[woo me with science]

58. This article is from April, and no executive order like this was signed

that I can find. That was almost seven months ago. Do we have any more recent evidence that this is even on the President's agenda now?

[12AngryBorneoWildmen]

104. Yeah. What's up.

Is this this just more bogus kibble? C'mon peeps, let's see some verification.

[mod mom]

2. This is going to place a burden on many defense contractors.

:thumbsup:

[cui bono]

65. This article is from APRIL... I don't think there's been any burden on anyone. n/t

[tblue]

72. Dagnabbit!

I remember there was talk about him doing this back then and I never heard any follow-up. I wondered why it had to be limited to only govt contractors.

[TrollBuster9090]

86. Why only limited to govt contractors?

Because an Executive Order only applies to the Executive Branch of Govt, of which the President is the boss. Issuing an executive order is the equivalent of a CEO issuing a directive to his/her company. It will only apply to his/her company.

Still, it would have a significant effect because the government is such a huge employer.

But, as other people have now pointed out, this story is six months old, and we haven't heard anything since. You can conclude one of two things from this: 1.He's saving it for later, or 2. They found out that the forcing these companies to disclose their secret donations would end up embarrassing Democrats more than it would Republicans.

Besides, it's a bandage solution. If they were really serious about getting corporate money out of election campaigns they'd sign an Executive Order that bans all corporations that donate ANY MONEY to ANY POLITICAL PARTY, or LOBBY CONGRESS from getting government contracts! Now THAT would be a significant improvement!

[tblue]

112. I ask myself every day

why our POTUS doesn't do just what you say (in the last paragraph). I swear I would if I was in a position to do it. Re-eelction prospects should be secondary to taking action on something as critical as this. But that's Fantasyland-talk so it's a 'pony' I have no right to expect. Sigh....

[gateley]

119. Thanks for the explanation - great analogy. Now if it ever

does see the light of day I'll know why "only limited to government contractors".

I'm hoping your possibility #1 is the answer.

:hi:

[FBaggins]

3. I don't think that that can pass muster

Ignoring the question of whether such a move requires legislation or not, and whether the USSC decision was correct... there is a ruling on the books that implies that this is a free speech issue, isn't there? If the courts said that the contributions can be secret (a part of the ruling that I don't remember), then the president can't discriminate against companies on that basis.

The title of the OP makes the point clearer. It implies that the President is overruling part of a USSC decision. And those are muddy waters.

It's also potentially troubling when an administration comes along that we don't trust (which may happen in a bit over a year). I don't think that I want that president to have information about the political leanings of a company bidding on government contracts.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. gonna make for one hell of a debate issue next year

Obama: This system is stealing from the American people. It is nothing more than kickbacks to politicians from defense contractors to keep both living off the hard working taxpayers of this nation.


Romney: Corporations are people! This money is free speech. Keep the money hidden, the taxpayers don't have any right to know about this stuff.







How much fun is that gonna be?

[FBaggins]

20. Fun if you can get the opposition to adopt the strawman.

Whoever it is... is more likely to spin it quite differently.

"Do you trust the president to not direct contracts to his political supporters and away from his opposition???"

I might trust him, but it sure makes for an effective TV spot.

[Motown_Johnny]

40. Except that Congress handles the pursestrings

Not very effective as an attack against the President. This can be aimed at Congress.

[FBaggins]

41. The pursestrings are very different from contract awards

With the notable exception of things like ACORN, Congress appropriates 'x' dollars for some purpose and the executive branch picks the contractor who gets the money.

[quakerboy]

47. Whats the argument there

That the president doesn't know who is donating to him, and can only find that out via public disclosure?

It seems fairly clear to me that your TV spot describes exactly how things happened under GW, if not other recent presidents as well.

[FBaggins]

51. There's a difference between "someone who didn't fund my campaign"...

... And someone who gave $25,000 to the other guy.

Or someone who made a token donation to me but gave 100 times as much to a swift boat campaign.

[bahrbearian]

57. So what, it is a two edged sword.

[TrollBuster9090]

87. They've done a pretty good job of adopting the strawman so far. The only problem is that the public

have been unable to recognize it as a strawman. They think he really IS a "job creator."


IMHO one of the solutions is this: The GOP are the paid servants of the plutocratic class. Supply-Side/Trickle-down economic policies are not "conservative" economic policies they are PLUTOCRAT economic policies. Written BY plutocrats for the benefit OF plutocrats and nothing more. By having the GOP hammer away at wedge issues like flag burning and gay marriage at the same time they're hammering away at tax cuts, they've been able to co-opt social conservatives into supporting economic policies that are not in their best interests, and are, in many cases, benefiting people social conservatives hate. (Paris Hilton, Michael Moore, George Soros etc.....aside from Hilton, people I love, of course.)

So, it will be less of an uphill battle to convince people who self-identify as "conservatives" that these are really NOT conservative economic policies than it will be to convince people who self-identify as conservatives that they are not really CONSERVATIVES. And the truth is that these are NOT "conservative" economic policies. Conservative economic policies are usually...well...CONSERVATIVE. ie-fostering THRIFT! Sponsoring government policies that encourage SAVINGS rather than making it easier to go into DEBT. Holding Wall Street executives RESPONSIBLE for reckless behavior, dishonesty, fraud, and corporate malfeasance. These are issues even people who self-identify as conservatives can get behind, if only we'd encourage them to.

[spooky3]

12. The lawyers here at DU may debate this. But (a) many executive orders

require actions not required of non-federal contractors (and this does not require Congressional approval); and (b) given how careful Obama has been with other issues involving the Constitution (e.g., he didn't want to force the budget limit increase through even though some constitutional scholars said he could, when the political payoffs to him for taking a chance on that were probably much more significant, or at least more immediate), I suspect he's had this fully vetted by his experts and believes it would stand up to court scrutiny.

Re: (a), as a non-lawyer, I would bet that the reasoning is that businesses are perfectly free to decide that they do not want to do business with the govt. if it requires them to disclose contributions. That's not the same as telling every business that it must disclose contributions, or forbidding all businesses from making certain contributions.

[jberryhill]

18. Correct

[lindysalsagal]

50. Agreed. (Way in over my pay scale)

I really hope you're right! :bounce::kick:

[TrollBuster9090]

90. You're right, but the other argument could be made just as easily.

As presented to the Supreme Court:

A) This is not a discriminatory order because businesses that don't want to disclose their campaign donations are not being forced to do business with the govt.

B) This IS a discriminatory law because it's their (political) choice whether they want to disclose their contributions or not, and the govt. is discriminating against people who've made one political choice vs. another. It would be the equivalent of forcing a business owner to disclose whether he voted Democrat or Republican before his company is allowed to bid on a government contract, which is already (technically) illegal. (I say "technically" because it's a well known fact that the Bush Administration imps were asking people they were interviewing for political hack jobs in Iraq in 2003 whether they voted Democrat or Republican, and if they were registered for one party or another. That's how we ended up with 20 year old kids straight out of college in charge of traffic control in Baghdad. They may not have had any experience in traffic control, but they past the political litmus test.)

I could easily see the Roberts Court opting for argument B. Very ironic, given that this is the party that wants to give private business owners back their right to discriminate against people on the basis of race! But, as I'm sure Rand Paul would explain it, INDIVIDUALS are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, religion or politics, but GOVERNMENT cannot.

[EC]

17. There is already precedent in the states

that already have this rule for contractors. It's a reasonable request that corps doing business with the government have no more privilege then other corps by buying their contracts.

[FBaggins]

23. Where did those rules originate?

If in the state legislature, the issue would be different.

It's a reasonable request that corps doing business with the government have no more privilege then other corps by buying their contracts.

Of course it's reasonable. But that doesn't mean that the current court will agree (or that everything that is reasonable is also legal).

You're also ignoring the reverse situation. Government officials have a great deal more ability to SELL contracts if they first require the applicants to tell them how much they gave to each side. It will be tough to spin "Oh... that's not why I asked them... really".

[jberryhill]

19. No business is required to contract with the federal government

Whether a company can make anonymous political donations is an entirely separate issue from the disclosure requirements that can be imposed on government contractors.

I don't have to tell the government a lot of things. But if I apply for a federal job, I certainly am required to tell them all sorts of things.

[FBaggins]

24. Absolutely true... IF what it being requested has some relevance.

Which party you donate to only has relevance to identify potential bias in contract-granting... but that bias is actually facilitated by the reporting requirement.

I'd rather just find a way to overturn the original ruling.

[SnakeEyes]

36. This was my thought as i was reading the op

I also thing whatever happens it will be tied up in courts until after the 2012 elections. It's going to be challenged based on the speech/SCOTUS issue and the right will certainly make an equality case saying if it is allowed then it should be applied to all such as unions.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

68. When you do business the federal government, they get to call the shots.

Don't want to dance to their tune? Fine. But don't come with your hand out.

The Executive has a fiduciary duty to insure contracts are not doled out on the basis of graft.

[TrollBuster9090]

88. You're right, it won't pass muster in the current Supreme Court, but...

1. It would probably get us through the next election by leveling the playing field before being overturned by Roberts et. al, and

2. We MUST keep the White House in the next election, or a Republican president will get the chance to stack the Supreme Court with enough Alito-style nuts to fuck the country up for the next 30 years!

[progressoid]

4. Well, its a start.

[closeupready]

5. K&R

nt

[redqueen]

6. K&R

[City Lights]

7. K&R. eom

[lamp_shade]

8. K&R n/t

[lamp_shade]

27. I'm REALLY looking forward to republican response. n/t

[ThomWV]

9. This won't stop a dime from finding its way to support right wing causes

So what? The information can't be used to select awardees for contract and where do you think the information will be made public? They won't have to publish it in the Wall Street Journal, they won't have to make TV commercials notifying the public. What they will do is bury the information in some form or report to the Government where it will be dutifully filed away for no one on earth to care about, see, or pay one single bit of attention to.

[Dont call me Shirley]

11. YAY, Mr. President! Decimate CU completely, we've got your back.

[valerief]

13. Can anyone block an executive order? This would be wonderful if it comes to fruition.

I still don't understand why the Senate operates by minority rule and when it all came about and why Reid doesn't change that rule that allows minority rule. Well, I do understand. They're all birds of a feather, Dems and Reps alike.

Dems are the old men on park benches who toss crumbs to pigeons when they feel like it.

Reps are the old men who shoot pigeons for fun.

We're the pigeons.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Keep your chins up McConnell, there will plenty of other opportunities to use money-changers

to corrupt the government.

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Ian David.

[PSzymeczek]

30. What chin? n/t

[Solomon]

35. You mean which chin.

[Autumn]

15. At last. thanks for posting this

K/R

[Le Taz Hot]

16. Correct me if I'm wrong but

didn't this Administration JUST put a 20-year kabosh on where and to whom our trillions went in terms of military contractors? What's to say the results of this new set of disclosures won't suffer the same fate? I'm sorry, but this president has betrayed us to such an extent that I cannot trust at face value anything coming out of the White House.

[slay]

25. You are not wrong

and i wonder - what if they donate it to a PAC or something similar - will they still have to tell? cause if not, what's the point? i don't trust this administration either.

[Liberal_Dog]

21. K & R

[spanone]

22. k&r...

[flamingdem]

26. Excellent move nt

[silverweb]

28. K&R

:thumbsup:

[Jakes Progress]

29. Good for Obama. Anything that makes the Heritage F gasp

is a good thing.

[Jakes Progress]

31. Lovely move. Now let's extend it.

How about an executive order that any company that does business with the government must provide a public disclosure of the ratio of American and foreign workers in the corporation. Or how about an order that privileges the bidding of corporations that hire more American workers. Many city governments require hiring quotas for tax and contract considerations.

I think the president has a good thing here. Run with it.

[kentuck]

32. Wow!

:fistbump:

[Demeter]

33. Disclosure is Pointless--Banning Corporate Money is the Only Solution

[mopinko]

34. knr

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[McCamy Taylor]

38. Yeah!

[lamp_shade]

39. Yay! Greatest Page!

[madrchsod]

42. the citizens united ruling gave the unions equal footing on campaign contributions

but not the access to equal amounts of money from the union members. my wife is the chair of her union`s political committee. the only money the union can send to the national union is the people she signs up for her committee.the national then sends her back a rebate for political action. her committee and volunteers can do other stuff to help a candidates such as phone bank,etc,etc.

right wing is just pissed off cause their stooges let the unions in the front door

[Stuart G]

43. K and R

[jwirr]

45. About time. Thank you President Obama for doing what you could.

[KoKo]

98. Article is from April 21st....No executive order has been executed...

[tritsofme]

46. This article is from April. Obama never signed this executive order.

And it doesn't appear he plans to anytime soon.

[a2liberal]

49. Thanks for the info

Interesting how people conveniently ignore things like that in their attempts to rationalize beliefs that Obama is liberal.

[slipslidingaway]

54. Thanks, wonder why it was suddenly posted again???

2011 executive orders

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=2011&Submit=DISPLAY

[edhopper]

48. Have to give him his props

when he does something good.

[L0oniX]

52. A bandaid on a compound fracture?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

53. could you post a highlights of this for us ADHD people...way too

many (probably brilliant) words for us to focus on

[paulkienitz]

55. excellent, if he follows through

[woo me with science]

60. This article is from way back in April.

I don't understand why it shows up now. I can't seem to find any evidence that this is even on the President's agenda at all.

[Major Hogwash]

56. We should impeach Justice Roberts

For going beyond the extent of the case to come to that decision in the first place.

[Firebrand Gary]

59. K&R

[woo me with science]

61. This article is from back in April, and the order never materialized.

This article is from April and talks about an EE Obama was "reported to be" working on.

Nearly seven month later, I can find no evidence that anything like this was ever produced or signed.

Do we have any more recent evidence that this is even on the President's agenda anymore?

[liberalla]

99. Good question!

We're all pleased with OP, kicking and recommending it...
but it hasn't even happened yet?

I hope he signs it soon.

[earcandle]

62. What are there not rules in place to keep derelict Supreme Court Judges and Congress from making

decisions that are not in the best interest of the American
public at large?

Why do we have to put up with stupid, treasonous, and
annihilating acts from congress against the people when they
took an oath to protect and preserve our commonwealth.

I do not understand?  Have we lost touch with the regulations
in place to reverse, or prohibit insanity and dereliction of
duties in our leaders?  

Thank you Obama for using the pen. 

[eallen]

63. Citizens United did NOT treat corporations as people

That's a myth.

What it said, and hardly for the first time, is that the 1st amendment's protection of "the press" includes corporate political speech. That is far from a new or novel interpretation. Newspapers were the media discussed by those who argued over this part of the Bill of Rights during its ratification. They were mostly businesses, and had been for a century before the Constitution was written. The court didn't say corporations were people. It said the 1st amendment has a clause that applies to businesses. And has been so viewed from the time it was first ratified.

If you think back to the seminal 1st amendment cases, many have involved businesses. From publication of Tropic of Cancer to the Pentagon Papers, the court would have tossed a significant part of the 1st amendment out the window if it had said, "these publishers, these newspapers, these movie houses are businesses, and so the 1st amendment protection of the press doesn't apply to them."

That interpretation would not have made any sense. But neither does the notion that viewing corporations as people is the only way to view the 1st amendment as applying to businesses. (There are other rulings where corporate personhood is an issue. But not this one.)

:hippie:

[fasttense]

96. Actually the Citizen United case does treat corporations as people.

It is NO myth. Read the opinions.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

It was such a blatant attempt to equate natural persons with corporations that Justice Stevens in his dissenting argument said:

"The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case."

Justice Stevens continually argues throughout his opinion that corporations are NOT people. If the ruling was NOT in favor of corporations being treated as people, why the constant argument in Stevens' dissent against equating corporations as people?

"And where as we have no evidence to support the notion that the Framers would have wanted corporations to have the same rights as natural persons in the electoral context, we have ample evidence to suggest that they would have been appalled by the evidence of corruption that Congress unearthed in developing BCRA and that the Court today discounts to irrelevance."

In the opinion of the court, the actual ruling, of the 5 bought and paid for supremes it says:

"The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”"

The 5 are clearly associating rights that people have as rights that corporations have.

Maybe you should actually read the arguments in the case to get at the truth instead of quoting Fox propaganda.

[chill_wind]

64. I'm confused.

This from April.. and

Did an actual executive order ever materialize anywhere (link)?


I'm not seeing it at a glance among the others here:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2011.html

Is there another good place to look?

Somebody posted this same article from that date in an some obscure sweepstakes forum today, for some reason:

http://forums.online-sweepstakes.com/showthread.php?p=10186529


I was googling for any actual current "news" on this and I ran across that.

:shrug:

[Occulus]

66. This OP is intended to confuse and paint a false picture.

Apparently, it never materialized. And yes, it's from way back in April, as the date in the article itself proves.

Fucking dishonest. I hate this shit.

Hearty unrec.

[kimsarah]

81. Here's something a little more current

"Obama campaign brings on ex-lobbyist as senior adviser"
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/189357-obama-campaign-brings-on-ex-lobbyist-as-senior-advisor

[chill_wind]

83. Hah!

:-/

[a simple pattern]

105. Goddamned liars. I want my rec back.

I knew there had to be a catch.

[cui bono]

67. This is an OLD article from APRIL. And I don't think this ever even happened.

Maddow talked about how even groups that have to disclose can then donate to those that do not have to or something... so that huge donations can end up being anonymous.

[bertman]

69. Waiting with bated breath to see this happen. REC. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Quit toying with my emotions.

[frylock]

71. unrec. obama hasn't signed anything..

plz read this SIX MONTH-OLD article before getting all rubbery.

[2banon]

73. DisInfo Alert! This has NOT occurred!! I agree with others! Hearty UNREC!

[w4rma]

74. It would appear that Obama did *not* follow through and has allowed this travesty to continue. (nt)

[Pryderi]

75. I keep wishing he would do this. Look at all of Dumbya's XOs. n/t

[LynneSin]

76. I know why he 'waited' so long. Because it'll take about a year for this to be challenged

Had he done it earlier it might have gotten overturned in time for the 2012 election.

[defendandprotect]

77. We need Obama -- and all politicians -- to STOP selling themselves and governent to corporations!!!

[NYC_SKP]

78. Thank you. nt

[kimsarah]

79. My recollection

is also that this is an old article, and nothing ever became of it. If so, it would fit right in with Big O saying he'll get tough, then either not doing it or doing something completely opposite to help the opposition party. That's his favorite road to take us all down. The road to nowhere. All talk, no action.

[Angry Dragon]

80. Free Speech does not equate to secret speech

[TrollBuster9090]

82. This is bullshit! If you're serious about this, how about an Executive Order that bans companies

...An executive order that bans companies seeking government contracts FROM LOBBYING CONGRESS, and FROM DONATING MONEY TO POLITICAL PARTIES, PERIOD!

This is something THE EXECUTIVE HAS THE POWER TO DO!

DO IT!

[chill_wind]

84. So, a six months old headline with the date omitted, no actual executive order

that anyone has linked to, and nothing currently in the news cited by yourself or anyone else as updating any of this as any reality..

I'm really trying to understand the point of your OP?


:shrug:

[Bryn]

85. Rec'd ... it may be old news but it bears repeating

to remind Obama to do something about that awful bill that SCOTUS passed.

[Zorra]

89. The whole world is watching....and waiting. nt

[pam4water]

91. Suspicious so many rec's for a so old article.

[cui bono]

100. Suspicious that it was ever posted at all at this time.

Also, I think a lot of people rec it without following the link so they didn't know the date.

I guess Mods don't want to take it down so DU will just become another Fox News if this continues to happen.

[Occulus]

101. One mod kicked the thread and one mod actually THANKED the OP.

This despite several posters pointing out both the article's date and the lack of any actual action in this direction.

Think about that. Hard.

[cui bono]

102. Just a microcosm of the current state of country I guess.

I alerted this thread twice. But after reading your post I understand...

Sad.

[Laluchacontinua]

92. Gad, sorry I recced it. Dishonest to post an old article that never happened as if it were current.

I was all ready to give some props to Obama & it's just more dishonest shite.

You know, people can see what their lives are like, their friends' lives are like, their communities are like, & you can't fool them indefinitely.

[Jamastiene]

94. Same here.

I rec'ced this misinformation before realizing the article was so old and nothing ever came of the claims in the article. That will teach me to read DU half asleep.

[BumRushDaShow]

93. Steny Hoyer, et al have threatened to overturn this proposed order

which is probably why it has been delayed. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62517.html">More recent article.

When people like Hoyer have threatened to overturn such an order, essentially codifying Citizen's United into law by doing so, it makes you wonder why people aren't blaming Congress. :crazy:

[Le Taz Hot]

95. Unrec. for misinformation.

As other DUers have pointed out, this article is from April and there's not evidence President Change signed anything of the sort.

[Thor_MN]

97. Does the 1st ammendment give rights to anonymous free speech?

My personal belief, since the founders had no concept of anonymous electronic media, is that you have the right to speak, but YOU have speak up, i.e. the source of the speech is known.

[Deep13]

103. Well, that's good.

It doesn't undo the damage of the C.U. ruling, but it's helpful.

[SoapBox]

106. K & R nt

[fascisthunter]

107. an Embarrassing attempt to Prop up the man

...and mods are kicking it.

[Exultant Democracy]

108. With A Stroke Of His Pen Obama Strikes Back At Citizens United April 21, 2011... nope

it didn't happen.

[DainBramaged]

109. I agree, fuck those who would fuck us.

[Skittles]

110. April?

you're really having to reach, aren't you? :rofl:

[golddigger]

111. Unrec!

[JuniperLea]

113. Why do you want Obama to fail?

:shrug:

[Admiral Loinpresser]

114. I don't.

I want him to start doing the right thing on a score of major issues. But disclosure requirements amount to cattle dung. Even Republicans are philosophically aligned with disclosure in federal elections. This does little (close to nothing) about the influence of money in politics, an issue which was greatly exacerbated by Citizens United.

The Obama regime has continued or expanded many repressive policies from the Bush regime and he has enabled the continuation of concentration of wealth through his cozy treatment of bankers. This plus his betrayal at Copenhagen in 2009 means he has continued the unsustainable path of Reaganism, a path leading to revolution or the downfall of the republic, not to mention further diminishing the habitability of the planet.

[frylock]

122. what an odd response to an obviously misleading headline

[NorthCarolina]

115. Unrec. This OP is total BS. No such EO was ever issued. If you rec'd, you were duped. nt

[SidDithers]

116. K&R...

thanks for posting.

Sid

[RC]

117. If it is "Free Speech" Then why need for secrecy?

If you or I give money to a candidate, anyone can look up how much on the Internet.
Corporations claim the are persons. So the same "Free Speech" rules need to apply.

By keeping it a secret, it looks more like a bribe, which we all know it is anyway.

Also the President is Commander in Chief. Therefore he can set/influence the rules the civilian suppliers of our Armed Forces need to adhere to. If it is campaign contributions/bribes, why not let the light of day shine on it?

[LoZoccolo]

118. K&R!

:kick:

[Ian David]

120. Apparently, Politics USA was reposting old articles. I'm sorry I missed that. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

121. Ian, would you please post a link to where they reposted this old article ...

Checked these links for a posting, but there is nothing there for yesterday.

http://twitter.com/#!/politicususa/progressives

http://www.facebook.com/PoliticusUSA


My thread on this topic was locked, so you will not be able to reply there, thanks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2202427&mesg_id=2202895

[Ian David]

123. People were retweeting it all over Twitter yesterday...

http://twitter.com/#!/search/With%20A%20Stroke%20Of%20His%20Pen%20Obama%20Strikes%20Back%20At%20Citizens%20United

There's no way to tell who sent it first, as far as I know.

But it doesn't look like @politicususa has it in their timeline recently. Then again, they could have deleted it after they sent it, but that would be weird.

http://twitter.com/#!/politicususa

[slipslidingaway]

124. Thanks for the reply, appears someone had an agenda to mislead ...

and it will only get worse.

I think these threads should be locked when it is known that the headline is misleading and old or the original poster should ask the mods to lock ... JMHO.

Instead my thread questioning the resurfacing of this story gets locked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2202427&mesg_id=2202427

[Ian David]

128. Yeah, I think you have the right idea. n/t

[cui bono]

126. Is PoliticsUSA related to ClarkUSA or do they just happen to have the same last name?

:)

[slipslidingaway]

129. Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action ...

:)

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/05/deep-pocketed-democratic-donors.html

[Occulus]

130. Really?

That's what you have to say about it?

How long ago was that exact thing pointed out?

:facepalm:

[Rex]

125. So is this story true or false? Did Obama do this or not?

I see plenty of posters saying this is old news and never happened. Is that true?

[yardwork]

127. Obama knows that they will use this to fund his opposition in the election.

This makes his own reelection more difficult. It's a terrible decision by the Supreme Court. Horrific in its implications.