Hypocrisy: Obama assails Supreme Court

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-02-2010
Hypocrisy: Obama assails Supreme Court
Sat, 01-30-2010 - 8:16pm

It's amazing that Obama thinks American people so stupid as to not remember the debacle his campaign had with foreign contributions.

January 29, 2010
Foreign contributions to Obama campaign should be investigated
Clarice Feldman

One of the oft remarked upon ironies of Obama's untoward attack on the Supreme Court ruling declaring unconstitutional the foreclosing of corporate and union contributions to political campaigns was his unwarranted claim that the decision opened up the floodgates for foreign contributions to US political campaigns.It doesn't. The section banning foreign contributions remains untouched by this decision.

The charge is ironic because Obama's campaign disabled a track back feature on its website which did permit such contributions to be made through pre-paid credit cards purchased around the globe. The campaign never was fined or otherwise disciplined for this because his party had blocked replacements to the overseeing Federal Election Commission and lacking a quorum, it could not act at the time.


William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY, weighs in:

As I previously posted, Obama was wrong on the holding of the case at issue and engaged in unjustified demagogory by confronting the Justices on the issue at the State of the Union address. Justice Alito's act of mouthing the truth to power in response has dominated the post-SOTU discussion.

Nonetheless, if Obama really is concerned about foreign campaign donations, then Obama should request that Attorney General Eric Holder (or an Acting Attorney General since Holder likely has a conflict) appoint a special counsel with the power to investigate, and if justified, prosecute violations of the laws, and conspiracies to violate the laws, forbidding foreign contributions.

And the place the special counsel can start is with Obama's 2008 campaign, which disabled security features in its credit card web portal so as to allow donors to evade restrictions on numerous aspects of the federal campaign laws, including the prohibition on foreign contributions...

More: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/01/challenge-to-obama-request-special...

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-07-2009
Sat, 01-30-2010 - 8:26pm
How are Soro's contributions legal?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-11-2009
Sat, 01-30-2010 - 8:42pm

As your experts probably already know, the ruling from SCOTUS did not apply to political campaign contributions. Attempting to conflate that this is about political campaign contributions muddies the issue altogether. Campaigns are not the issue.

The ruling was a first amendment statement that corporations may, even without permission from politicians they support, run political advertisements independent of any campaign. They may run those advertisements in support of or against any politician. Corporations do not need to be solely owned by US citizens in order to run such advertisements. Whether fully-foreign-owned or partially-foreign-owned corporations will decide to advertise is a matter of speculation.


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-15-2009
Sun, 01-31-2010 - 1:13am
How are they illegal?????????
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2010
Mon, 02-01-2010 - 7:57am

Hi S, I agree, the decision takes away all remaining restraints on special interest corporate spending to influence Washington. Corporations need not bother with the formality of PACs anymore to dump their feed in the special interest trough.

And the Supreme Court did not rule foreign owned or controlled corporations can't enjoy the similar pleasure. The belief that a corporation owned by the Chinese government, or Huge Chavez's government, or even a foreign corporation, will not act in the interests of its foreign owners according to their instructions is naive to say the least.

A friend of governmentofbyforthepeople.