Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 02:50 PM
Original message
With A Stroke Of His Pen Obama Strikes Back At Citizens United
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 Amendments 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 couldnt muster the super majority needed to overcome Republicans 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 Citizens 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



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
12AngryBorneoWildmen Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #58
104. Yeah. What's up.
Is this this just more bogus kibble? C'mon peeps, let's see some verification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is going to place a burden on many defense contractors.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
65. This article is from APRIL... I don't think there's been any burden on anyone. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #65
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrollBuster9090 Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #72
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #86
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....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #86
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. I don't think that that can pass muster
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 03:01 PM by FBaggins
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #20
40. Except that Congress handles the pursestrings


Not very effective as an attack against the President. This can be aimed at Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #40
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. There's a difference between "someone who didn't fund my campaign"...
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 07:36 PM by FBaggins
... 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. So what, it is a two edged sword.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrollBuster9090 Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #20
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. The lawyers here at DU may debate this. But (a) many executive orders
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 03:08 PM by spooky3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Correct

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindysalsagal Donating Member (444 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #12
50. Agreed. (Way in over my pay scale)
I really hope you're right! :bounce: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrollBuster9090 Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #12
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
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".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnakeEyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hassin Bin Sober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrollBuster9090 Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well, its a start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
6. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. I'm REALLY looking forward to republican response. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dont call me Shirley Donating Member (396 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
11. YAY, Mr. President! Decimate CU completely, we've got your back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
13. Can anyone block an executive order? This would be wonderful if it comes to fruition.
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 03:09 PM by valerief
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
14. Keep your chins up McConnell, there will plenty of other opportunities to use money-changers
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 03:16 PM by Uncle Joe
to corrupt the government.

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Ian David.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSzymeczek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. What chin? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. You mean which chin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
15. At last. thanks for posting this
K/R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
16. Correct me if I'm wrong but
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 03:22 PM by Le Taz Hot
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
21. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
22. k&r...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
26. Excellent move nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverweb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
28. K&R

:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
29. Good for Obama. Anything that makes the Heritage F gasp
is a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
32. Wow!
:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
33. Disclosure is Pointless--Banning Corporate Money is the Only Solution
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
34. knr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
37. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
38. Yeah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
39. Yay! Greatest Page!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuart G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
43. K and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
45. About time. Thank you President Obama for doing what you could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #45
98. Article is from April 21st....No executive order has been executed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
46. This article is from April. Obama never signed this executive order.
And it doesn't appear he plans to anytime soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a2liberal Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. Thanks for the info
Interesting how people conveniently ignore things like that in their attempts to rationalize beliefs that Obama is liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #46
54. Thanks, wonder why it was suddenly posted again???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
48. Have to give him his props
when he does something good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
52. A bandaid on a compound fracture?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
53. could you post a highlights of this for us ADHD people...way too
many (probably brilliant) words for us to focus on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulkienitz Donating Member (313 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
55. excellent, if he follows through
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #55
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
56. We should impeach Justice Roberts
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 08:27 PM by Major Hogwash
For going beyond the extent of the case to come to that decision in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Firebrand Gary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
59. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #61
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earcandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
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. 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #63
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 Courts 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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
64. I'm confused.
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 10:11 PM by chill_wind
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-orde...

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=1...


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

:shrug:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #64
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimsarah Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #66
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-cam...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. Hah!
:-/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a simple pattern Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #66
105. Goddamned liars. I want my rec back.
I knew there had to be a catch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
69. Waiting with bated breath to see this happen. REC. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
70. Quit toying with my emotions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
71. unrec. obama hasn't signed anything..
plz read this SIX MONTH-OLD article before getting all rubbery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2banon Donating Member (794 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
73. DisInfo Alert! This has NOT occurred!! I agree with others! Hearty UNREC!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
74. It would appear that Obama did *not* follow through and has allowed this travesty to continue. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pryderi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
75. I keep wishing he would do this. Look at all of Dumbya's XOs. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #75
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
77. We need Obama -- and all politicians -- to STOP selling themselves and governent to corporations!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
78. Thank you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimsarah Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
79. My recollection
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 12:23 AM by kimsarah
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Dragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
80. Free Speech does not equate to secret speech
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrollBuster9090 Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bryn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 01:54 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
89. The whole world is watching....and waiting. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pam4water Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 03:50 AM
Response to Original message
91. Suspicious so many rec's for a so old article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #91
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #100
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #101
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laluchacontinua Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:03 AM
Response to Original message
92. Gad, sorry I recced it. Dishonest to post an old article that never happened as if it were current.
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 04:05 AM by Laluchacontinua
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #92
94. Same here.
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 04:36 AM by Jamastiene
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BumRushDaShow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:21 AM
Response to Original message
93. Steny Hoyer, et al have threatened to overturn this proposed order
which is probably why it has been delayed. 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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thor_MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
103. Well, that's good.
It doesn't undo the damage of the C.U. ruling, but it's helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoapBox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
106. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
107. an Embarrassing attempt to Prop up the man
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 11:39 AM by fascisthunter
...and mods are kicking it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exultant Democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
108. With A Stroke Of His Pen Obama Strikes Back At Citizens United April 21, 2011... nope
it didn't happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
109. I agree, fuck those who would fuck us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
110. April?
you're really having to reach, aren't you? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golddigger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
111. Unrec!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #111
113. Why do you want Obama to fail?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Admiral Loinpresser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #113
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #113
122. what an odd response to an obviously misleading headline
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
115. Unrec. This OP is total BS. No such EO was ever issued. If you rec'd, you were duped. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
116. K&R...
thanks for posting.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
117. If it is "Free Speech" Then why need for secrecy?
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 02:43 PM by RC
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
118. K&R!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
120. Apparently, Politics USA was reposting old articles. I'm sorry I missed that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #120
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.ph...





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. People were retweeting it all over Twitter yesterday...
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 04:32 PM by Ian David
http://twitter.com/#!/search/With%20A%20Stroke%20Of%20H...

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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #123
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.ph...





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #124
128. Yeah, I think you have the right idea. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #120
126. Is PoliticsUSA related to ClarkUSA or do they just happen to have the same last name?
:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #126
129. Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #120
130. Really?
That's what you have to say about it?

How long ago was that exact thing pointed out?

:facepalm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC