Obama's Defense Of SCOTUS Remark Doesn't Wash

The WH's defense of Obama's remarks on a recent Supreme Court ruling doesn't cut it for a president, let alone someone who professes to be a Constitutional scholar. It amounts to his saying, well, 80% of the law was bad, but since one element of it was good it should have withstood the Court's test. Rubbish.

Good law gets made over time, especially with the legislative bunch we have today. The Court's ruling upheld the First Amendment and nothing they ruled prevents Congress from going back to fix any loophole. By demagoging the issue, Obama failed to pass any relevant test for his statesmanship, presidential behavior, and alleged Constitutional scholarship. I say alleged, as we've yet to see what his grades actually were. If this is any indication, it's a wonder he passed at all.

The White House says President Barack Obama was accurate when he took on a Supreme Court ruling in the State of the Union address, even though Justice Sam Alito mouthed, “Not true.”

Alito’s protest came when the president said: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) … And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: “There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."

Comments

[DavidW]

With all due respect, I ask you to please answer the following simple question: Given the new SC decision, what's to keep the American corporation of a Foreign parent corporation (Valero, Sony America, Samsung America, T-Mobile, SmithKline Glaxo) from pouring million and/or billions into our electoral process?

[L Nettles]

as someone else has asked, what is the problem with petitioning the voters as a whole, compared with lobbying the elected few.

[D.Schroeder]

For David W:

You mean people like George Soros?

[cubanbob]

With all due respect, I ask you to please answer the following simple question: Given the new SC decision, what's to keep the American corporation of a Foreign parent corporation (Valero, Sony America, Samsung America, T-Mobile, SmithKline Glaxo) from pouring million and/or billions into our electoral process?
Posted by: DavidW | Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 12:36 PM"

And the problem with is what? They are US entities that employ people here and the companies and their employees pay taxes here. So again, what is the problem? All the ad money in the world means nothing if the product stinks or the message doesn't resonate. The real problem is politicians spending taxpayer money to but votes from the 50% of the country that doesn't pay income taxes and all those who work for government. The founders were right, it is time to limit the vote to net taxpayers.

[Penny]

Wasnt Obama the one to change his credit card processing during the campaign so he could get foreign money??

Also...all the SC ruling allows is for corporations can run ads...not give money to the candidate, that is still restricted, why does that point get lost in all the hubbub?

and lastly, having just watched two months of ads in MA for a Senate race, whoever thinks corporate money and union money isnt in ads is mistaken. There were plenty of SEIU and Chamber of Commerce ads.

Instead of Soros direct, he formed a non profit...now we will see him directly.

[mcg]

2 U.S.C. 441e

[Odysseus]

RE: DavidW

2 U.S.C. section 441e?

[TedW]

with all due respect to the poster DavidW, please stop parroting Dem talking points for your own self-respect, they are almost always wrong and prey upon your ignorance.

What stops that is 2 U.S.C. Section 441e. That was SPECIFICALLY not set aside by the SCOTUS decision. That is the section of the law that specifically prohibits foreign contributions, not the part that was struck down. The part that was struck down, 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, is not about foreigners.

I suggest DavidW that you would be better served asking the POTUS about his campaign's blatant disregard for that Section of the US Code when they disabled the software necessary to eliminate foreign donations to his campaign. But that would be inconvenient for you, wouldn't it?

[Chris]

Holy crap David W, yes what would the world come to if T-Mobile started buying ads and taking an interest in American elections? Would the voters rush to transform our nation into an Austrian or Japanese controlled state? What's the concern? People are really confusing spending on ads, political speech, etc. which anyone as a citizen or resident of the US has a right to do, compared to paying money directly to politicians and lobbying them.

If Samsung wants people to know how great Obama is and runs an add for Obama or against McCain, we as the informed electorate can take that into account. It could very well backfire since most people don't appreciate foreign involvement.

This is a SPEECH issue. Foreign-owned should corporations have a right to attempt to influence the public debate if they are employing and paying taxes in this country.

If Microsoft is in Japan and Japan wants to pass a law that will harm thousands of Japanese Microsoft employees or customers you think Microsoft should just be required to quietly sit there and not enter the realm of public debate? Which includes paid advertising.

[F. A. Hagen]

The Obama Campaign raised millions from online credit card donations without tracking what country the donations were coming or even who they were coming from.

What's the issue again?

[Alex]

Freedom of association being coupled with freedom of speech=Bad.

Due process rights given to terrorists caught on foreign soil=Good.

Receiving unlimited funds from unknown overseas donors while running for President as a Democrat=Good.

[mcg]

It is interesting to see arguments that a foreign corporation should be able to influence elections. I don't agree. If foreign individuals cannot do so---and I definitely believe they should not---then foreign corporations should not, either.

Part of the risk of working in a foreign country is that the laws will change in a manner that hurts you, and you will not have enough influence to prevent them. That's just the way it goes. Ask anyone who does business in China or Venezuela. It's the risk you take. Of course, as a free marketer I'd say it is in the host country's best interest not to screw over foreign interests like that, but that's the decision *they* make.

But whether or not we agree they should be allowed to do so, they are currently NOT. And the Supreme Court decision did not change that.

[kham]

This is somewhat besides the point, but wasn't it candidate Obama who went over to Germany to give a campaign speech?

[ic]

Are those really loop holes if they were left there on purpose for the politicians and the lobbyists to drive trucks through?

[RobertW]

While watching the Supreme Court snippet, I believe that AG Holder joins in the standing ovation given the Dear Leader after his attempt to denigrate the only branch of our government for which the electorate still has any degree of respect. Is it wise for the Attorney General to insult the highest court in the land in a forum such as this? Does Madam Speaker owe the Court, present by her invitation, a public apology?

[Koblog]

So it is okay to give "alleged" foreign terrorists-combatants bent on destroying the country full legal rights and spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to defend them against the charge of being a foreign terrorist...

... but it is not okay to grant a company -- operating legally under US law, paying US taxes and employing US citizens whose jobs may be directly effected by certain laws or politicians -- the right to buy an ad out of its profits to speak its piece...

...but it is okay for labor unions to extract dues by force from members and run any ad they want?

[JT Thomas]

I thought Valero is a US company? Where is it based? I thought San Antonio, for it is named after the Alamo mission.

[Jeff]

There is no loophole ...

There is still a portion of the law, not struck down, that specifically prohibits a foreign corp from donating or running ads ... if a US sub wants to run an ad or make a contribution they first have to prove they are not being influneced or directed by their foreign owners. Very hard to do and most foreign subs would most likely not even try.

No matter what a US corp. cannot contribute unlimited sums directly to a candidate nor can it coordinate with a candidates campaign.

[Daniel]

What prevents a foreign company/ government who never sets foot in America from setting up their own YouTube channel to comment and advocate in American Politics? And how would the law that was overturned have stopped that anyway?

[GMAX]

If its rude to call our "Liar" when a person is lying on the floor of the House ( and it is ) is it not equally rude for the President to blast the SC for a decision taken in earnest and with deliberation in a forum that permits them no measure of response? Exactly how were they to act when such base behaviour is exhibited. I wait patiently for a Democrat Party troll to explain this breach of Emily Post...

[Bill Johnson]

One wonders at the quality of education attained by the students of The One during his tenure as an affirmative action, Peter-principled constitutional law 'professor'.

I think they are due a refund, plus penalties and interest.

[jaed]

And how would the law that was overturned have stopped that anyway?

YouTube is a corporation and could have been ordered by the FEC to remove access to the commentary in question, on pain of felony charges. (This is somewhat speculative - the FEC has held back on complete enforcement of McCain-Feingold speech restrictions - but not wholly. If I remember correctly, during the 208 election season, the FEC released a statement saying it was not going to go after bloggers at that time for mentioning a candidate's name, but believed the law allowed it to.)

A further thought on the foreign-subsidiary issue: the Justice Department argued in court that the free speech and publication restrictions in McCain-Feingold also would apply to books. Supposing an author writes a political book criticizing a politician, and suppose the publishing house happens to be owned by a foreign company. (I believe there are several such, so it could easily happen.) Should that book be banned by the FEC? Nonsense.

Looking at the specifics of the case in question, I'm fascinated by the number of people who believe it should be a felony to show a movie because it criticizes a politician running for office. And I'm frankly horrified by the fact that the President and the Attorney General seem to be two of those people.

[jaed]

(To clarify, the first line of my post is a quote from Daniel's earlier comment. Apparently italics don't work here.)

[Patrick Jennings]

If you change the term from 'foreign companies' to 'multinational companies' it eliminates a lot of the curse of it.
The worry (I think) is that Sony America will give political donations to candidates that throw their support behind pro-Japan policies. GM has a big operation in Brazil (iirc) so they will throw their support behind candidates with pro-Brazil policies. Both companies have big interests in America too, I think it's really splitting hairs to say one is significantly worse than the other (regarding American campaign contributions) because of the physical location of the Headquarters.

[beatrix]

With all due respect, commenters should try to understand, and the President certainly must understand, that it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret and apply the Constitution. The Court decided that the provision in question did not pass muster under the First Amendment. That was its job, which it did the way it is supposed to do, by reference to the Constitution and the law and not to politics.

"What is to stop" foreign corporations from pouring money into our elections is not up to the Court -- it's up to Congress. Congress will presumably now pass some kind of law that deals with the issue of US subsidiaries of foreign corporations. But it's going to have to follow the standards of constitutionality laid down by the Court when it does so. That's how our country works and we are damned lucky that it does work that way. It doesn't help to keep it working that way to have our President publicly castigate the Court as if they should have decided the statute's validity based on its public policy consequences rather than its Constitutionality. That's how you sabotage and undermine the constitution that has kept us free this long (and that enables all of us to express our opinions freely right here, by the way, and to take that privilege for granted while we're at it.) Why would the President want to do that?

Further, how dare Obama demagogue the Court on this subject when foreign contributions formed such a large part of the wealth that got him elected, and when he broke his promise to use public financing specifically so he could take advantage of all that foreign money! He has no shame.

[SukieTawdry]

This guy doesn't know history, economics or Constitutional law (his supposed specialty). He doesn't know how to govern or unite opposing factions. He's hapless in conducting the nation's affairs both foreign and domestic. What was it exactly that recommended him for the job?

[Vita]

With all due respect, how does a guy who amassed a $600 million dollar campaign war chest, accepting tons of money from Soros, from unions, from "offshore" addresses get off acting so high and mighty?

[Alphonse]

I can't wait for the next set of presidential debates.

The president will set you right wingers straight on these issues then, you betcha!

[ElcubanitoKC]

Alphonse, I can't wait for his campaign...I mean, term to end either.

[Kaitian]

"What was it exactly that recommended him for the job?"

The 2004 Democratic National Convention when Markos fell in love with the guy after his scripted speech from a teleprompter.

[Mr. Biswas]

As an exercise in historical comparisons, I wonder what people would think if in 1954 President Eisenhower had reacted the same way as Obama has now done in his reaction to the Warren Court's momentous decision in Brown v. Board of Education. If Ike had said he disagreed with the Warren Court in overturning judicial precedent and had asked Congress to pass legislation to work around that decision, would we think less of Ike? Would we be supportive of such a reaction by Congress? Or do we think that it was wise of the President and the Congress of the time to show their full due respect to the Supreme Court in having performed its Constitutional responsibilities?

[Mr. Dooley]

Mr. Dooley,

Why is the clear contempt for the citizenry, for the Constitution, for the customs, the laws and the institutions of this country as expressed by President Obama referred to as arrogance, or narcissism instead of being recognized for the contempt that it is????

Best regards,

Mr. Dooley

[Mr. Dooley]

Mr Dooley says:

Any American who has ever witnessed this ferocious contempt that President Obama and his minions express both in word and action ---at every chance they get---for this country, its citizens, its customs and its laws, probably will not forget the stinging humiliation of the experience, even for a “Chris Matthews” hour. And when Americans do choose to wallow in the denial of President Obama’s scornful posturing, to continually give him a “pass” for his abysmal ignorance, and to collectively repress the knowledge of his sheer contempt for its citizens, in order to conveniently ”forget “---for even one hour---the ultimate consequences of such deep seated and pervasive contempt, let them recognize, at least, that they do so at great peril and risk to our Constitution, to the Republic itself and to the citizenry who are even now being schooled in silence and taught to fear the consequences of the knock on the door in the middle of the night.

[George]

It's kind of cute to see Obama and the Democrats pretend that there's any real way to control whether or not foreign entities are financing or running political ads towards the US public. Sure, YouTube could be cracked down on by the US government, but what about foreign web sites?

What's to stop a foreign person from setting up a web site that draws US viewers to influence them about US politics? What's to stop foreign companies or political organizations from doing the same thing? How in the world would you ever go about stopping a foreign entity from financing some American to run ads that they want run?

It's almost as if they're living in the 1980s.

[Charles Bennett]

Show your support for Alito and the Supreme Court with a t-shirt or sweatshirt!

http://www.cafepress.com/NotTrueAlito

[papertiger]

"Also...all the SC ruling allows is for corporations can run ads...not give money to the candidate, that is still restricted, why does that point get lost in all the hubbub?" - posted by Penny.

The restriction of ad revenue, deforming the market at the expense of popular news channels, might have been the only thing keeping viewer challenged networks in the game.
Wouldn't it be nice if Chris Matthews and Christina Amanpour were paid what they are really worth, for a change?

[Barry Soetoro (D-King Of The World!)]

I, uh, uh, let me be clear,, uh, as I've said before, uh, I uh, uh, make no mistake, uh, failed polices of the past, I, uh,, I, I, I, uh,, bitter-clingers, uh, I, I, I............

OsamaHussienIslamObama 2012'
(the terrorist-Uighur-ACORN-media choice)
-It's never too early to campaign-

[krista]

You guys are whack! And I am being nice?

It is time to face your discontent with yourself and stop blaming others.

[krista]

Thanks for making sure our corporations have complete say in who runs the country. Corporations need to have the freedom to run our country into the ground- The middle class still exists as a roadblock to corporate freedom!