by Mark Silva
The president raised a few eyebrows and more than a few hackles last week when he complained - standing before justices of the Supreme Court who had issued the controversial ruling -- that the court's recent decision lifting a ban on corporate spending on election campaigns will open "floodgates'' of special interest spending, including foreign corporate money.
But subsidiaries of "foreign corporations from across the globe have launched a lobbying campaign in Washington to protect their newfound power to influence American elections under the Citizens United case,'' a White House attorney notes. "About 160 of these U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned or controlled corporations are involved in a lobbying group trying to stop President Obama and Congress from enacting limits on their spending in political campaigns...
"It appears that the group of companies has the potential to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence American elections,'' Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, wrote at the White House blog last night.
"All of this demonstrates why the president was right to criticize the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United - and why he is also right to call for reform of the lobbying laws, including tough new rules on lobbyist disclosure, that build on the dramatic steps he has already taken in his first year in office to change Washington,'' Eisen writes.
"Some have argued that Citizens United will not increase foreign influence, but they are mistaken,'' Eisen contends. "The four-justice dissent, authored by Justice Stevens, specifically pinpoints the fact that the majority opinion opens the door to foreign influence -- see page 33 and page 75. The majority openly acknowledged that foreign influence could pose a potential issue here, as did the lawyer for Citizens United. And, a stream of independent, non-partisan experts have echoed the president's concerns.''
There's not a lot that anyone can do about the constitutional ruling that the court made on the free speech-rights of corporations in campaigns, apparently, but the White House is calling for some new rules:
-- Establish carefully-tailored, low-dollar limits on the contributions lobbyists may bundle or make to candidates for federal office.
-- Toughen lobbyist disclosure rules so that - like the voluntary step the President has taken to disclose visitors to the White House - lobbyists must disclose the details of every lobbying contact, including what the meeting was about.
-- Close the loophole that allows foreign agent lobbyists to avoid full disclosure of their activities.
-- Fully disclose all earmark requests on a comprehensive, bipartisan, state-of-the-art disclosure database that allows Americans to examine the details of every proposed request.
Comments
SPEAKING OF FLOOD GATES . . . AIR PELOSI OVER $2 MILLION AND COUNTING . . . HEY FAMILY FLIES FREE!!!! WHATTADEAL!!!!
*
House Speaker’s Military Travel Cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a Two-Year Period, Including $101,429 for In-Flight Expenses
*
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2010/jan/judicial-watch-uncovers-new-documents-detailing-pelosis-use-air-force-aircraft
*
22-Feb-2007: A military jet is requisitioned for the sole travel needs of the Speaker's son, Paul Jr.
13-Apr-2007: A military jet is utilized for the unaccompanied travel of the Speaker's daughter, son-in-law and grandson.
30-Oct-2008: A military jet is requisitioned for the Speaker's daughter and a son-in-law, Peter Kaufman. to commute between San Francisco and Washington.
Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | February 1, 2010 10:39 AM
Perhaps a finger in the terrorist dam may be more important.
------
The most important story you didn't see last week (and probably won't ever see)
A Senate hearing last week confirmed the public's worst concern about Barack Obama: That when it comes to national security Obama hasn't just been asleep at the switch, he hasn't even bothered to find the switch.
*
The picture that emerged from the hearing was of a president disinterested in national security, more concerned about health scare and cap-and-tax than in preventing what his Homeland Security chief infamously called "man-caused disasters"; of an administration more busy fighting turf wars than waging the real war against Islamic terrorists--whom Obama refuses to even call by that name; of a Commander in Chief who doesn't take seriously his most essential job of protecting this country's citizens, more focused on extending terrorists these citizens' rights than he is on gathering the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe. The Obamedia all but ignored the hearing, of course. It was more important for them to protect their anointed One ... even if folks' lives are at stake.
Posted by: Thank GOD I'm a Conservative | February 1, 2010 10:41 AM
UMMM JUST LIKE THE NOBAMA PROMISE OF "NO LOBBYISTS" IN HIS SHAMINISTRATION? WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THAT BEFORE? SPEAKING OF DEJA VU . . . OHHH NOOOO . . . IT'S DEJA VU ALLLL OVER AGAIN!!!!!!
*
Deja vu a nightmare for Democrats?
*
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32285.html
*
The parallels to 1994 — the last time health reform died — are unmistakable. Democratic senators huddled for weeks in backroom meetings, groping for a workable alternative. Some of the attempts at reviving it were genuine, while others were only designed to suggest forward progress, observers recall. After four or five weeks, the effort was abandoned as Democrats geared up for the midterm elections. The same signs are all there for health care, circa 2010. No one in Congress will say it’s dead, but smart people can’t figure out how it stays alive.
Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | February 1, 2010 10:44 AM
Misdirection anyone? Let's stay off subject so we can let chaos reign. Rabid!
Posted by: bill r. | February 1, 2010 11:50 AM
“‘It appears that the group of companies has the potential to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence American elections,’' Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, wrote at the White House blog last night. .
“All of this demonstrates why the president was right to criticize the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United …”
.
No, it doesn’t. Free speech for corporations has been supported by a solid line of case law going back to 1935. Political speech, above all others, has been deemed to be at the core of the First Amendment’s protections. The result was completely predictable based on these two considerations alone. The fact the result didn’t match Obama’s views doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
.
In the larger scheme of things, the Court’s ruling did very little. It merely removed limits on corporate political speech that advocated the election or defeat of an identifiable candidate within a 30 or 60 day window before a primary or election. Up to the beginning of that window, corporations could support or oppose such a candidate with ads and television spots without limitation. The 30- 60 day limitation never applied to advertising that advocates votes for certain issues, or against certain parties that advocate certain positions on issues. In other words, the floodgates were always open, and the money already flowed. The law that was struck down did little to stem the flow of corporate influence. In which case, Obama’s criticism is little more than fear mongering.
Posted by: John W. | February 2, 2010 3:11 AM