Obama’s weekly address regarding the Supreme Court’s campaign finance ruling

Entire transcript below the fold. I eagerly await the Grover Norquist/Jane Hamsher co-signed FDL letter and online petition calling for an immediate congressional fix for this judicial travesty. It’s coming, right? Right?

Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
Weekly Address
January 23, 2010

One of the reasons I ran for President was because I believed so strongly that the voices of everyday Americans, hardworking folks doing everything they can to stay afloat, just weren’t being heard over the powerful voices of the special interests in Washington. And the result was a national agenda too often skewed in favor of those with the power to tilt the tables.

In my first year in office, we pushed back on that power by implementing historic reforms to get rid of the influence of those special interests. On my first day in office, we closed the revolving door between lobbying firms and the government so that no one in my administration would make decisions based on the interests of former or future employers. We barred gifts from federal lobbyists to executive branch officials. We imposed tough restrictions to prevent funds for our recovery from lining the pockets of the well-connected, instead of creating jobs for Americans. And for the first time in history, we have publicly disclosed the names of lobbyists and non-lobbyists alike who visit the White House every day, so that you know what’s going on in the White House - the people’s house.

We’ve been making steady progress. But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists - and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law - including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.

This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way - or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.

I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.

All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs off-shore.

It will make it more difficult to pass commonsense laws to promote energy independence because even foreign entities would be allowed to mix in our elections.

It would give the health insurance industry even more leverage to fend off reforms that would protect patients.

We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

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.

A hundred years ago, one of the great Republican Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, fought to limit special interest spending and influence over American political campaigns and warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending. His message rings as true as ever today, in this age of mass communications, when the decks are too often stacked against ordinary Americans. And as long as I’m your President, I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.

[via Chicago Sun-Times]

Posted by Kevin K. on 01/23/10 at 11:18 AM • Permalink

Categories: NewsPoliticsBarack ObamaNuttersPoliblogsYouTubidity

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

He’s worse than Bush!!!!

You know, jurisdiction stripping is commonly called for by Republicans looking to outlaw rulings on abortion and flag burning, but I think that in this case, there’s a case to be made for it.

Admittedly, it’d be a hard sell, but it’s both politically and Constitutionally viable as an idea.

You know, jurisdiction stripping is commonly called for by Republicans looking to outlaw rulings on abortion and flag burning, but I think that in this case, there’s a case to be made for it.

Admittedly, it could set an ugly precedent, but something’s got to be done about this ruling. I think pointing out how foreigner entities can easily influence US elections now should hopefully be enough to win over the righties.

Not all of them, but enough of them.

Why is Obama opposing this? Isn’t he the corporatist President who was installed by Big Business and Foreign Money?

This is going to make it difficult for Confused Feminists and Progressives to maintain continuity in their mythical narratives of usurpation and betrayal.

PS: Krauthammer’s in love with this ruling, which pretty much guarantees that it’s toxic to human life and good government.

Admittedly, it could set an ugly precedent, but something’s got to be done about this ruling. I think pointing out how foreigner entities can easily influence US elections now should hopefully be enough to win over the righties.

It’s kind of a nuclear option where SCOTUS is concerned, but it’s not unheard of, even fairly recently - SCOTUS is forbidden to review some INS (as was) decisions, and habeas petitions for federal prisoners are limited, IIRC.

TBH, I think that jurisdiction stripping as a thing in itself is fairly uncontroversial as a doctrine - the Constitution provides in Article III, Section 2, that Congress ultimately controls the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS. What makes it controversial is the subjects which people which to take from the Court’s purview, such as abortion and 1st Amendment rights.

^Second “which” should be wish.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main