iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Weekly Address VIDEO: President Blasts Supreme Court Over Citizens United Decision

First Posted: 03/25/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:15 PM ET

DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Saturday sharply criticized a Supreme Court decision easing limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions, saying he couldn't "think of anything more devastating to the public interest." He also suggested the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda.

In its 5-4 decision this week, the high court overturned two decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using their own money to produce and run campaign ads that urge the election or defeat of particular candidates by name.

Portraying himself as aligned with the people and not special interests, Obama said the decision was unacceptable.

"This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," the president said in his weekly radio and Internet message. "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."

Obama said that means public servants who stand up to Wall Street banks, oil companies, health insurers and other powerful interests could find themselves under attack when election time rolls around.

"I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest," he said. "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."


The court issued its ruling just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way and as Obama's Democratic Party feels the pressure from a string of losses in New Jersey, Virginia and in Massachusetts, where this week Republican Scott Brown came from behind to win a Senate seat Democrats had held for decades.

Obama said the decision will make it harder to enact financial reforms, close tax loopholes, promote energy independence and protect patients from insurance company abuses -- key elements of his domestic agenda.

"We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans," Obama said. "And we don't intend to."

He said he has instructed his administration to work with Congress to "fight for the American people" and develop a "forceful bipartisan response" to the decision.

"It will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done," Obama said.

---

TRANSCRIPT:

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.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Saturday sharply criticized a Supreme Court decision easing limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions, s...
DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Saturday sharply criticized a Supreme Court decision easing limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions, s...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 18,795
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (263 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ramsha
01:55 PM on 01/26/2010
Does democracy work?
Sure it works the way you want, if you have the money to lavishly feed the hungry politicians.
After the recent Supreme Court decision to let the corporations spend any unlimited amount in the campaigns of elected officials, our democracy can be called the "Dictatorship by corporations by proxy".
07:16 AM on 01/26/2010
Carbolaw, judicial assistant, judges assistant, law clerk, do any of these titles ring a bell..........how many of them ever get the chance to present a summation in court??????????????????
06:35 AM on 01/26/2010
My prior post is in response to Carbolaw.
06:34 AM on 01/26/2010
And you still insist no freedoms were violated with (your) legal pre{s}ident. I am one who usually supports the constitution............question......do you think if things were turned around and not bipartisan the ACLU would have something to say about its adoption. Your points are all a smokescreen as I believe M/F would never be ratified today. It is and was clearly unconstitutional.

All laws are tailored to apply to certain classifications.

Free speech was a carefully regulated concept by the founding fathers.

There is no such thing as bipartisan research.

(?Three things that are rarely if ever done????????????????????)
Marbury?Madison
Dredd Scott
Miranda
Brown/Board Of Education
Poe v Wade
FCC v Pacifica
Hustler/ Falwell
Webster/Reproductrive Health
And how many of the prior decisions do you agree or disagree with?
11:12 PM on 01/25/2010
It's not exactly encouraging that President Obama has taken this position. I'd have been shocked if he hadn't. It's not unusual for him to speak out against shenanigans, but where the rubber meets the road he hasn't proven himself willing or able to actually act in a manner that is consistent with his oratory.

I can talk a good game, too...and write a post or two like this: http://www.alyssonfergison.com/supreme-court-knockout-blow-to-democracy/, while I'm at it. But in the long run, President Obama's pretension of outrage has no more power to affect change than my genuine fury. I gave you my vote, Mr. President. And now I've thrown down the gauntlet. Pick it up, sir...and prove that my cynicism has an expiration date.
12:13 AM on 01/26/2010
Alysson, enjoy probably your last "I demand because I voted" sentiments as we all should! Soon all our "elected officials" will be legally bought and paid for puppets who don't give a chit what we demand!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:23 PM on 01/25/2010
The cure for 1984 is 1776. ~ gmb007
Too late, it's 2010. ~ fairplaystacy

It’s never too late.

The Revolutionary Spirit of 1776 is the only thing that can crush ‘1984' - the concept of totalitarian regime of One-Party*, oligarchical/plutocratic rule, perpetual War, censorship, intrusive, omnipresent government surveillance of Big Brother and total destruction of citizens' rights, as brilliantly depicted by George Orwell. Orwell’s ‘1984' was intended “...as a show-up of the perversions . . . which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism...the scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else, and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.”

The Founding Fathers proved that as long as we breathe and have the spirit of rebellion in our blood, it is never too late.

* The Corporate Party, as institutionalized by the SCOTUS 5 on Black Thursday.
QuietLightTraveler
Scientist, Teacher, Naturalist, Photographer
04:03 PM on 01/25/2010
Someone should tell Obama that we are tired of hearing his rhetoric. So far he has done nothing to help the American people. Enact some new laws. Do something usefull for a change. Get it done.
The supreme court is just a bunch of worn out politically biased judges judges who deserve no particular respect. Like most legal people they never really help a situation. They more often than not add to the country's burden. By the way, never recommend that anyone go into the practice of law in this country. If they do they will be very unhqppy when they find out it has little to do with justice.
photo
DougSmith
I calls it like I sees it
09:01 PM on 01/25/2010
"Enact some new laws"

You may need a civics lesson. The President doesn't enact new laws, that's the congress.

The problem isn't the President it's the obstructionist congress.

When Reagan was in office, he and Tip Oneil worked together to get things done. There is no bi-partisanship today. If a republican worked with a democrat he/she would face a primary challenge.

The system is broke.
03:02 PM on 01/25/2010
One share one vote - US moves from democracy towards rule by the wealthy (“plutocracy”)!

A corporation is not a democratic institution, its ownership and ultimate control (including decissions on its political influence through funding) is determined by shares, i.e. the more shares owned the more control a shareholder has. Before the equal voting rights movement managed to end it in the early 20th century, many countries used a system where rich persons had more votes than poor. A factory owner may for instance have had 2000 votes while a worker had one or if they were very poor no right to vote at all. This is rule by the wealthy or “plutocracy” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy). Is US willing to revert to this century old system? With the Supreme Court’s decision we are well on the way.

A union on the other hand is a democratic institution, each member has a vote, and therefore elected union leaders represents its membership democratically. Thus any political influence the union wields represents its membership democratically.

Therefore I see that associations where each member has equal say have the right to use its funds in proportion to their membership for political influence without endangering the principles of democracy.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
carbolaw
03:12 PM on 01/25/2010
Great points and very interesting ideas. People can rail against unions all they want, but to your point they are the most democratic of any form of organization in this country. Further, there is a guarantee that each one of the votes in a union is coming from a Working American. If you do not like what your union leaders are doing you can vote them out. If you do not like what a mega-corporation is doing - go and put together a group of investors and once you have collected 100s of millions of dollars you might have some sway.
03:27 PM on 01/25/2010
"votes in a union is coming from a Working American"... also an excellent point!
03:23 PM on 01/25/2010
Hear, hear. Well put. Fanned.
02:30 PM on 01/25/2010
America, this is what happens when justices BUY a seat on the Supreme Court, qualified or not.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Bronxdude
Integrity has no need of rules
02:08 PM on 01/25/2010
Activist republican judges – what happened to Stare Decisis?
01:42 PM on 01/25/2010
To borrow a word from another commentator Sirreal1, the campaigns are like "PR"s now a days. And I add the example of it's like when different entities having booths at a fair. The one with most freebees, confettis, more colorful broshures printed on expensive paper and bigger posters with bigger letters draws the most audience. In a limited time there is only that much attention to go around. So whose name will you remember at the end? The one with freebees or the one who had a black and white hand-out and no freebees? I bet you didn't even notice the later!
02:57 PM on 01/25/2010
freebees = freebies !!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
leiatcolo
12:17 PM on 01/25/2010
It does have a plus side. Voters will be able to tell which corporation is backing a candidate. If it is a corporation with a questionable reputation. Then wouldn't common sense tell a person that maybe it would not be good to vote for that candidate? I think that I will be checking out alot of corporations and the CEO's next election. Research will show if that company is more about the money or if it is about employing and treating people fairly. So I do agree that the decision was a bad one, but on the other hand it will provide a broader knowledge about corporate support for the candidates seeking election.
photo
DougSmith
I calls it like I sees it
12:19 PM on 01/25/2010
Our only hope is that enough people refuse to buy products from corporations that support any political candidate.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bluepond
person
12:29 PM on 01/25/2010
I predict a huge wave of public disgust with corporations as well as most politicians. Some candidates will be able to take advantage of it, but only for a little while. Just an increase in the lurching between parties that we see now..."throw the bums out"...every 2 years or so. Nothing will get done. More "off with their heads" stuff.
12:50 PM on 01/25/2010
That might work for a while, maybe the next round of elections. But I am afraid most peole don't have the time/means to do more research. They'll just buy into what they're presented with on their favorite TV station!!! and call it "informed". :(
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ramman
11:24 AM on 01/25/2010
Only through blinded eyes could you see this decision as fair. Once again everyone corporations are not people or individuals with a single vote and wouldn't even represent every persons views who work for that company. And don't forget you may do your business with a particular bank giving them your money and then they turn around and use your own money against the candidate you would vote for. This decision was clearly a political one don't kid yourself. This coming from our justices who aren't suppose to make decisions based on political reasons but then again Roberts was put in for long term political reasons in the first place being the youngest Chief Justice ever. Americans you have been sold out to big corporate interest. The funny thing is that while this was being brought before the court it didn't get much air time if any by the big news stations we all watch everyday, more than likely for fear of protest about it. No matter what answer they gave to make it sound like reason they know in their hearts this was not the right one by any means. We as a country were warned about the trappings or corporate interest for decades but the love of money and political greed have continued to muzzle the people's voice. How sad for a democracy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bluepond
person
11:05 AM on 01/25/2010
Wait till the republicans and tea-baggers find out what this ruling does to states' rights. What do you think will happen when there is a conflict of interest between a state's interests and a big corporation's interests? For that matter, what will happen when there is conflict between conservative morality and corporate interest? Oh, let's hope our "I told you so" is not the only consolation for the triumph of the school of unintended consequences.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DavidShort
01:07 PM on 01/25/2010
I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain your point. I'm assuming you have one, but I couldn't pull it out of the rant.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
carbolaw
01:54 PM on 01/25/2010
Perhaps part of what the poster is referring to is the fact that after the Santa Clara ruling hundreds of state laws regulating corporations were done away with either as a result of the judicial process or states pulled them in anticipation of them violating the ruling. Now with this case it is already suspected that we will see the same. If you are asking about the general theme, I would hope that you are aware that the conservative, "strict constructionist" Justices all consider themselves to be the champions of state rights. However, the Bush v. Gore decision already showed the hypocrisy of this "states' rights" position.
01:07 PM on 01/25/2010
True. The more I think about this they more I come to believe that the activist judges miscalculated because this ruling puts big corporations at a big advantage vs. individuals and every small and mid-size businesses and emphesizes the conflict between them. There is a good chance that the neo-cons shot themselves in the foot with this one. I only hope that Repubs open their eyes and don't stick with what they're told but see that this ruling is absolutely going to hurt the majority of individuals and businesses in this country and only benefit the big mutlinational corporations. Unless that's exactly what they want!!!
10:29 AM on 01/25/2010
There is a huge hypocracy in Obama criticizing this decision.
He is sell off the military to for profit (reak campaign money) businesses at a record pace. Now even NASA is being acutioned by Obama.
He met in secret session with insurance companies and gave them all they wanted and with big banking and give them all they wanted.

Mister O'Bush is running the same shill ans the RepoCons, with a finanical staff make up mostly of RepoCons.