HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rumors Swirl: Obama To Kn...

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:10 PM

Rumors Swirl: Obama To Kneecap The Koch Brothers With Citizens United Executive Order

It is being reported that one of President Obama’s surprises at the State Of The Union will be an announcement of an executive order that will take on the Koch Brothers and Citizens United.

Eleanor Clift of The Daily Beast reported:

Wednesday is the fifth anniversary of Citizens United, and reformers have been told that the president may announce executive action in his SOTU speech that would require businesses contracting with the government to disclose political contributions after contracts have been awarded. This would ensure that the contracting process is blind, but also give the public (and the media) the information needed to connect the dots to look for backroom deals or conflicts of interest.


Guess who happens to have multi-million dollar contracts with the Department of Defense? The federal government hating Koch Brothers have tens of millions of dollars in defense contracts with the federal government. Rush Limbaugh also has a federal government contract that allows his showto be broadcast on the American Forces Network.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/20/rumors-swirl-obama-kneecap-koch-brothers-citizens-united-executive-order.html


I know it's just a rumor still at this point, but if it's true it would be amazing.

129 replies, 14713 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 129 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rumors Swirl: Obama To Kneecap The Koch Brothers With Citizens United Executive Order (Original post)
herding cats Jan 2015 OP
stevenleser Jan 2015 #1
herding cats Jan 2015 #6
JimDandy Jan 2015 #46
CTyankee Jan 2015 #59
JimDandy Jan 2015 #60
CTyankee Jan 2015 #61
aggiesal Jan 2015 #65
herding cats Jan 2015 #68
JimDandy Jan 2015 #91
BeanMusical Jan 2015 #108
grahamhgreen Jan 2015 #117
stevenleser Jan 2015 #118
grahamhgreen Jan 2015 #119
stevenleser Jan 2015 #120
grahamhgreen Jan 2015 #125
HappyMe Jan 2015 #2
leftynyc Jan 2015 #3
olddots Jan 2015 #4
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #5
upaloopa Jan 2015 #7
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #10
Lochloosa Jan 2015 #13
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #14
Maineman Jan 2015 #21
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #23
Orsino Jan 2015 #103
Act_of_Reparation Jan 2015 #114
Orsino Jan 2015 #115
Act_of_Reparation Jan 2015 #121
PosterChild Jan 2015 #82
upaloopa Jan 2015 #22
AzDar Jan 2015 #90
MFrohike Jan 2015 #72
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #73
MFrohike Jan 2015 #74
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #77
MFrohike Jan 2015 #80
Orsino Jan 2015 #104
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #105
we can do it Jan 2015 #20
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #36
Duval Jan 2015 #43
skepticscott Jan 2015 #38
upaloopa Jan 2015 #48
skepticscott Jan 2015 #70
upaloopa Jan 2015 #89
Post removed Jan 2015 #106
Flatulo Jan 2015 #100
Takket Jan 2015 #9
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #11
LawDeeDah Jan 2015 #17
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #26
upaloopa Jan 2015 #29
Enthusiast Jan 2015 #92
A Simple Game Jan 2015 #24
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #30
neverforget Jan 2015 #49
Enthusiast Jan 2015 #93
upaloopa Jan 2015 #27
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #32
upaloopa Jan 2015 #47
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #50
Enthusiast Jan 2015 #94
neverforget Jan 2015 #86
Enthusiast Jan 2015 #95
edhopper Jan 2015 #25
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #28
edhopper Jan 2015 #33
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #35
whathehell Jan 2015 #67
edhopper Jan 2015 #69
PosterChild Jan 2015 #83
whathehell Jan 2015 #88
Enthusiast Jan 2015 #97
whathehell Jan 2015 #101
PosterChild Jan 2015 #128
Enthusiast Jan 2015 #96
skepticscott Jan 2015 #41
edhopper Jan 2015 #52
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #57
WilliamPitt Jan 2015 #55
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #56
harun Jan 2015 #107
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #109
harun Jan 2015 #111
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #112
harun Jan 2015 #122
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #123
harun Jan 2015 #124
Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #127
harun Jan 2015 #129
Ykcutnek Jan 2015 #8
LawDeeDah Jan 2015 #12
Half-Century Man Jan 2015 #15
Renew Deal Jan 2015 #16
rurallib Jan 2015 #18
Enthusiast Jan 2015 #102
George II Jan 2015 #19
tridim Jan 2015 #31
Enthusiast Jan 2015 #98
herding cats Jan 2015 #40
Roland99 Jan 2015 #34
herding cats Jan 2015 #42
Roland99 Jan 2015 #78
djean111 Jan 2015 #37
Duval Jan 2015 #39
vkkv Jan 2015 #44
Scuba Jan 2015 #45
WHEN CRABS ROAR Jan 2015 #51
kelliekat44 Jan 2015 #53
Enthusiast Jan 2015 #99
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #54
vlyons Jan 2015 #58
grasswire Jan 2015 #62
kairos12 Jan 2015 #63
kpete Jan 2015 #64
Enrique Jan 2015 #66
blkmusclmachine Jan 2015 #71
MFrohike Jan 2015 #75
Cha Jan 2015 #76
madville Jan 2015 #79
valerief Jan 2015 #81
George II Jan 2015 #84
herding cats Jan 2015 #85
LynneSin Jan 2015 #87
world wide wally Jan 2015 #110
Ferd Berfel Jan 2015 #113
DesertDiamond Jan 2015 #116
Anansi1171 Jan 2015 #126

Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:11 PM

1. That would be a master stroke. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:30 PM

6. The idea of such an EO has been discussed off and on for a few years now.

Considering the timing, I'm thinking this is something which could very well be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:56 PM

46. What is to stop any company that submits a bid

from making sure that political donations are funneled through a subsidiary instead of the arm that bids?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:30 PM

59. I'll bet they thought of that. Betcha that'll be the part that is exposed, too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:36 PM

60. I'm hoping so.

And that it is airtight so they can't find a way to weasel out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:41 PM

61. How can it not be? It's their favorite gambit, so to speak.

It seems to me to be the point of all this...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 07:06 PM

65. What's stopping them from ...

giving their donations to one of the SuperPAC's that don't have to disclose their donors?

This will only drive the anonymous donors deeper, but still have the ability to donate as much
as they like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #65)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 07:58 PM

68. This is exactly what would be covered if an EO were to be issued.

The original draft, which was being discussed a few years back, covered contributions made to third party entities which would then use them for campaigns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 02:07 AM

91. Obama said nothing about this in his speech, unfortunately. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #91)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 10:20 AM

108. I would have been extremely surprised if he had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 02:23 PM

117. Couldn't this be overridden by the TPP?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #117)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 02:25 PM

118. No. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #118)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 02:27 PM

119. They could sue saying the rule impacts their profits.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #119)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 02:29 PM

120. No, they can't. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #120)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 09:41 PM

125. Of course they can. They got the money. The courts are in their favour if we sign the TPP.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:13 PM

2. Wow!


That would be excellent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:15 PM

3. Agree this would be amazing, if true

 

(koch)heads will be exploding all over the place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:16 PM

4. I won't bet on it

 

The Koch suckers are holding the cards .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:17 PM

5. I support Citizens United for free speech reasons, but I would have no problem with this.

Corporations are always free not to contract with the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:33 PM

7. Money is not speech and corporations

are not people even of some right wing judges say so.
So you see you can't support citizens united on free speech grounds you can just join in the misinformation campaign .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:46 PM

10. If the decision had gone the other way, Congress would be able to ban books

that mention election candidates. I think it should be unconstitutional to criminalize the publication of a book, whatever it says about election candidates.

The ACLU strongly supports the Citizens United decision for a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:53 PM

13. "Strongly Supports" is a stretch IMO

We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.

At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.

In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lochloosa (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:54 PM

14. Not only "supports", they filed an amicus brief with the court in the case.

And I have absolutely no problem with enhanced disclosure and limits on campaign contributions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:13 PM

21. Ban books? Nonsense. Books are books, and money is money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maineman (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:16 PM

23. The government actually argued to the court that it should be possible to ban books.

According to Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who argued the case, the government could theoretically regulate other forms of pre-election corporate speech as well, including books and the Internet. "That's pretty incredible," said Justice Samuel Alito. "You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" Yes, Mr. Stewart said, if a corporation or union were paying for it. It would be possible to "prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds."

http://citizensunited.org/press-releases.aspx?article=430#sthash.u2shz7wC.dpuf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 09:39 AM

103. Books are speech. Money is not.

Removing limits on how much speech the rich can buy is a terrible idea antithetical to democracy. Please reevaluate your support for such a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #103)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 12:19 PM

114. Money, as donations, is association

And association is protected by the First Amendment.

The thing to remember, however, is that rights aren't unlimited; you can't, by exercising your rights, deny the rights of another citizen. So, whether money is or is not speech isn't really the issue, as speech is already limited in a number of other circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #114)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 12:25 PM

115. Money isn't speech.

It's letting someone else speak for you, or changing someone else's speech.

It is not the speech itself...and removing limts on those practices is bad news for democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #115)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 02:33 PM

121. I'll repeat: it is association

"Association" includes people pooling their resources to advance a particular cause collectively. This qualifies as speech and is protected by the First Amendment.

Do you not think you should have the right to donate to non-profit organizations as you see fit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maineman (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 11:17 PM

82. And movies are movies...

... Cirizens United is actually a right wing film production company. The2 produced a political documentary and released it, to paying audiences in theaters before the election. This is what they were halled into court for. That just isn't that far from publishing a book right before an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:16 PM

22. What I said

Money isn't speech and corporations are not people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 02:06 AM

90. Well-said.

 



DO IT, MR. PRESIDENT!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 09:42 PM

72. Yeesh

The ACLU's argument in favor of money as speech is dishonest and invalid on its face.

The book banning argument is also dishonest. McCain-Feingold limited the ability of non-human entities to advertise for a short period prior to a presidential primary or general election. It was not a ban, as the word ban is commonly used. There's a difference between an honest-to-God book ban and not allowing non-human entities, no prohibitions on actual humans you'll notice, from advertising for 30-60 days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #72)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 09:46 PM

73. Again, the government argued before the justices that it had the power to ban books.

According to Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who argued the case, the government could theoretically regulate other forms of pre-election corporate speech as well, including books and the Internet. "That's pretty incredible," said Justice Samuel Alito. "You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" Yes, Mr. Stewart said, if a corporation or union were paying for it. It would be possible to "prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds."

http://citizensunited.org/press-releases.aspx?article=430#sthash.u2shz7wC.dpuf


So here "ban" (as defined by the attorney acting for the government) meant "prohibit the publication of".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #73)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 09:50 PM

74. Oh?

Did the Deputy Solicitor General argue that he could ban those forms of communication in excess of the statutory period? If not, then my point stands. It's a temporary bar on advertising for NON-HUMAN entities. There is no bar, nor could there be such a bar, on an actual human. You are arguing for the 1st amendment rights of legal fictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #74)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 10:08 PM

77. The exact phrase he used was "prohibit the publication of the book" (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #77)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 10:36 PM

80. Within the statutory period

McCain-Feingold allowed for a bar 30 days prior to a presidential primary and 60 days prior to a general election. I highly doubt the government argued that grant of authority was unlimited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #73)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 09:41 AM

104. Supporting Citizens United to prevent the banning of books is a silly non sequitur. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #104)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 10:06 AM

105. I think a big reason why the ACLU supports the decision so strongly

Last edited Wed Jan 21, 2015, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

is that they believe that banning books should be unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:11 PM

20. I wish I could rec this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:29 PM

36. I stand with the ACLU on this issue (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:44 PM

43. Me, too. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:41 PM

38. Citizens United did not say that "money is speech"

 

or that "corporations are people". The misinformation campaign is by people who keep insinuating that it did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:00 PM

48. Where do you suppose those ideas came from?

Maybe from the judges yea maybe the judges
Oh no we just pulled them out of our asses after the decision was handed down and we just repeated what Mittens said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #48)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 09:21 PM

70. They came from a misunderstanding or a deliberate twisting

 

of what the decision actually said, by people who either didn't understand it or needed it to fit their agenda no matter what, or both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 12:45 AM

89. I think that is pure bull shit

On edit: I wanted to add this. The outcomes of that decision point to the truth in what I've said and the rejection of what you say.
It is easy to use academic words and views that don't begin to speak to the reality of the suffering in people's lives that decision has brought and will bring in the future.
Come down from your cloud and open your eyes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #89)


Response to upaloopa (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:19 AM

100. Actually, it was pretty much pulled out of someone's ass.

 

The court ruled that since individuals have protections of speech, if individuals choose to organize into groups, the group doesn't lose its protections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:37 PM

9. Citizens United squelches free speech. It makes it impossible for individual's voices to be heard

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:48 PM

11. On the contrary, you can band together with other like-minded individuals,

pool your resources, and make your collective voice heard. And Citizens United protects the free speech rights of such an organization, even though it is not a "natural person".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:07 PM

17. How the hell are people who don't have time for their kids

 

because they are working 2 or 3 poor wage jobs, or money to pay for basic needs supposed to 'band together' and beat the Kochs.
How do these people get to lobby and buy half of congress? are you KIDDING?

w . t . f . !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:17 PM

26. Much of Obama's support came from small contributions from individuals.

Do you think the Kochs preferred Obama to Romney?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:21 PM

29. Get real OK ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:00 AM

92. WTF, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:16 PM

24. How do you make your "collective voice heard" if you are hiding in a corner?

If you want your voice heard you shout it out "I support this candidate with my own money."

Hiding in the shadows and refusing credit for a contribution could easily be called a bribe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:21 PM

30. Joining a union would be one example (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:03 PM

49. because unions are so strong in the US today

and they're not under assault by corporations, Republicans or state governments led by Republicans.. But, yeah, joining a union if it were only that easy....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neverforget (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:01 AM

93. +1 an entire shit load.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:20 PM

27. You can ban with other working class people

who have to spend every cent they own to survive.
I guess you are one of those academics who come here with that kind of irrelevant bull shit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:23 PM

32. I support the right of unions to speak for their members.

Citizens United protected that right, even for political speech during an election campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:58 PM

47. What percent of people are in unions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #47)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:03 PM

50. 11.3%, or 14.5 million people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:05 AM

94. Unions have that right already. And it isn't working out well for my side.

Union voices can't hope to match the volume of the corporations. We are witnessing the results of Citizens United right now. It has destroyed the democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 11:54 PM

86. Funny how corporations use their money, sorry "free speech", to buy politicians while us little guys

can't even come close to the amount of money, I mean "free speech", to have our voices heard. Oh well. It's only money, er free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neverforget (Reply #86)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:06 AM

95. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:17 PM

25. So you agree

Corporations are people, yes?
And money is speech, yes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:21 PM

28. Corporations are not "people", but do have constitutional rights.

Last edited Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

And you do certainly need money to make your voice heard. Paying dues to a union which represents the opinions of its members would be one example of this. And Citizens United protects the union's free speech right to publicly oppose or support any candidate it chooses in an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:24 PM

33. Paying dues to a union

isn't a right.

And non-human entities don't have civil rights. What next, the right of corporations to vote?

Needing money to be heard is the problem and anathema to what free speech is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:27 PM

35. It's one example of how people can have a collective voice.

And if "non-human entities don't have civil rights", the police can enter and search Planned Parenthood clinics whenever they feel like it, for no reason, without a warrant, and confiscate whatever they like. Isn't it better for Planned Parenthood to be constitutionally protected against unreasonable search and seizure, even though they are a "non-human entity"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 07:38 PM

67. Yes, and avoiding responsibility is the reason businesses incorporate in the first place

so, unlike REAL people, this gives them lots of "rights" with no responsibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #67)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 08:21 PM

69. True that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #67)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 11:32 PM

83. limited liability isn't avoidance..

...of responibility. It's the reasonable limitation of responsibility to the business entity doing the contracting. Everyone contracting with the buseness understands that and is willing to take the risk.

In return, the public gets an efficient and transparent financial market for capital formation and risk sharing as well as publically available, standardized, and audited financial reporting. The modern corporation is a boon to society and the world's economic development would be severely stunted without it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PosterChild (Reply #83)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 12:35 AM

88. Limited liability should mean limited rights..

The modern corporation is both a boon and a danger. While it provides efficient allocation of financial resources, its competitive ruthlessness will compel the corporation to exploit any tools provided to it to limit financial risks and expand financial opportunities. Corporations should not be provided a louder voice than natural persons due to their greater financial capabilities.

Thus there is a danger that the government will be manipulated into sending us back into a world of robber barons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #88)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:08 AM

97. +1 You nailed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #97)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 09:24 AM

101. Thanks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #88)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 10:02 PM

128. I generally agree (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:07 AM

96. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:42 PM

41. No, and if Citizens United had said either of those things

 

your question might be relevant. But it didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to edhopper (Reply #52)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:25 PM

57. Wikipedia articulates the decision accurately:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)[dead link], is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:18 PM

55. Jesus.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #55)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:21 PM

56. Was that also your reaction to the ACLU filing an amicus brief in the case?

Do you generally agree with the ACLU's position on other issues?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 10:17 AM

107. Are you constitutionally guaranteed protection to pay a police officer not to give

you a speeding ticket? It's just speech right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #107)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 10:25 AM

109. No, bribing a law enforcement officer is very different from making a movie or publishing a book

about a candidate in an election. The former is not protected free speech but I (and the ACLU) believe that the latter should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #109)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 12:05 PM

111. A bribe is what the law says it is.

I have no problem with contributions to and spending of political organizations being regulated.

An individual can fund and make movies with their whole fortune about whatever they want.

I'm giving my opinion about what should be you're just stating the current law which happens to be what you want it to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #111)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 12:06 PM

112. Should a publisher be allowed to publish whatever book they want? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #112)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:42 PM

122. Publisher yes, PAC no. A PAC being what is defined by the Federal Elections Campaign Act as a PAC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #122)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 09:17 PM

123. How would you codify in the Constitution that a publisher has First Amendment rights,

but a PAC does not? Or would you strip both publishers and PACs of First Amendment protections and hope that Congress would allow publishers to publish books without restriction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #123)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 09:39 PM

124. As long as an individuals rights are not infringed upon I don't care if Congress screws them both.

Then let elections sort out the problems with Congressmen who would vote for such nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #124)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 09:52 PM

127. So you're OK with the constitution to allow Congress to ban publishers from publishing books,

and you trust that elections will ensure that we would never have a Congress who would "vote for such nonsense".

I guess I am keener on the First Amendment than you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #127)

Sat Jan 24, 2015, 12:12 PM

129. PAC's, not publishers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:36 PM

8. BUT, BUT, BUT...

 

I thought he was just proposing things that have no chance of happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:50 PM

12. Be still my heart!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:01 PM

15. Good start.

If so, get every state we can to enact similar rules of disclosure.
This issue could find liberals aligned with Tea Party to reach common goals.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend (at least temporarily)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:05 PM

16. I've had a Citizens United inspired sig line from an Obama SOTU from a few years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:10 PM

18. If I can't have the lottery, Lord, let me have this one

I promise to kneel on one knee and point to the sky like them football guys do if Obama does it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rurallib (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 09:32 AM

102. Hey! LOL!

+1! "like them football guys" [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:10 PM

19. I don't think the Citizens United decision included a provision for anyone to hide their...

.....contributions, just that there would be no limits on them. Also, I don't think the Koch Brothers have been hiding them, either. So, I doubt that this Executive Order, if it is as presented above, really won't change much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:22 PM

31. Always give the Koch Brothers the benefit of the doubt.

Because they're such fine, upstanding folks?

Is this a joke?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:10 AM

98. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:42 PM

40. It's actually due to a loophole which is being exploited to that effect after the CU ruling.

At least to my understanding of the issue that's how it's being done.

This article explains it.

That means that those nonprofit groups, which are not required to disclose their donors, can now use corporate contributions to buy political commercials, and the corporations can potentially operate behind the anonymity of their donations.“Clearly, that’s where the action’s going to be,” said Kenneth A. Gross, a Washington lawyer who advises corporations on political law.

While last month’s decision allows corporations to spend without limit on advertising for or against candidates, if they do so directly, they will have to report their expenditures and identify their donors. Mr. Gross said corporations are often loath to have their names attached to such advertisements. The nonprofit groups, with their legal ability to withhold donors’ names, offer an attractive alternative, he said.

Democratic Congressional leaders called the loophole dangerous, and they have proposed legislation that would require nonprofit groups to identify publicly the sources of financing for their political advertisements.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/us/28donate.html?pagewanted=all


Which is where an EO such as this would be helpful in transparency of election finance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:26 PM

34. WAIT! "to disclose political contributions after contracts have been awarded"

*AFTER*

That's kind of pointless, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:43 PM

42. It's the only legal way this can be done after the SC ruling.

As to it being pointless, not really, it shows the money trail and the power the donations wielded. It shines a spotlight on just what exactly is being bought and paid for by whom in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 10:20 PM

78. Closing the barn door after the animals have left....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:30 PM

37. Like the Koch brothers care any more if we peasants know what they are up to. Yawn.

 

Not going to change a single vote, IMO.
I would be impressed if Obama said that, after reflection, the TTP and TTIP are really bad deals and so he will scuttle them, plus he will fulfill that rhetoric wherein he said he would re-address NAFTA. Um, re-address it to address the job losses, not make it even more corporate friendly.
What are the chances?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:41 PM

39. Man, let us pray!

 

This would be wonderful for us, and perhaps a beginning of getting rid of Citizens' United for good. And the flipping (I'm being nice) Koch brothers will not longer be able to hide their contributions.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:45 PM

44. That's a start...

 

but not enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:50 PM

45. Whoopie. We can already connect the dots, but the media belongs to the crooks, so no one knows.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:04 PM

51. I won't believe it until I see those names in print.

That sword cuts both ways, it's not just the right wing that gets awarded contracts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:08 PM

53. Worst of all is Rush Limbaugh having a government contract to spew his vile lies and misinformation

 

and disrespect for the President to the uniform service men and women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:11 AM

99. +1 an entire shit load.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:14 PM

54. This comes rightt out of Teddy Roosevelt's book, and right when we need it.

This is a major stroke against corruption.

Thank you, thank you, thank you President Obama.

This is the best thing Obama has done as president. And that is saying a lot.

I just can't recommend this post and this great news enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:28 PM

58. well I hardly call that "knee-capping"

Knee capping would be making it illegal for corporations to make any political contributions at all. But I guess this, if it's true, is better than nothing -- just barely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:43 PM

62. Halliburton, Bushco, Carlyle Group!

Rand Corporation, Raytheon...

The Intel community and the military contractors too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:45 PM

63. Corporations are my kind of friends, my friend.

What Rmoney really meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:50 PM

64. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

&

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 07:24 PM

66. Alito won't like this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 09:28 PM

71. When pigs fly...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 09:55 PM

75. Kneecapping? Hardly

An affected party could just and rely on the Citizens United precedent. I appreciate the sentiment, but it's an empty gesture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 10:00 PM

76. I thought at first this may be an Onion type thing..

Thank you for posting, herding cats! We'll shall see





http://theobamadiary.com/2015/01/20/chat-away-494/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 10:27 PM

79. Many Congressional Democrats will oppose such a thing

There are billions of dollars in contracts going to friends and families of many Congressional Democrats as well. I'm sure a few would be very unhappy, some of the prominent ones should retire anyway, I say open the books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 10:54 PM

81. Or else what? If you guessed or else nothing, you win, cuz that's how

politics rolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 11:36 PM

84. Watched the entire speech, did I sleep through this part?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #84)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 11:38 PM

85. Nope, I watched it, too.

It was just rumor I'm guessing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 12:32 AM

87. I say do it.

What's the worst the GOP could do? Impeach him? They don' have enough votes in the Senate to remove him from office.

I say sign it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 11:31 AM

110. Terrible Supreme Court? Or the worst Supreme Court in history?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 12:16 PM

113. THat's great. Hope it's true - NOW WHAT ABOUT TPP?

Will Citizens United matter anymore if the TPP goes through?

Just askin


Troubled TTP Isn’t the Only ‘Trade’ Takeover Busting Our Sovereignty

Even as controversial ‘trade’ deal, TTIP, sputters, other deals to give corporations as much power as countries are being negotiated even more secretively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 01:32 PM

116. The only problem I see with this is that it would happen AFTER the contract has been awarded...

The horse is already out of the barn - how you gonna catch it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 09:47 PM

126. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread