The real reason Obama hated the Citizens United ruling
It may be the only way the president’s 2012 opponent, whoever that might be, can come close to him in the fund-raising department. From the Washington Post:
Will President Obama be the first billion-dollar man?
He raised and spent $750 million in the 2008 campaign, and there is already speculation that the cash-collection operation for his 2012 reelection bid will crest the once-unimaginable sum of $1 billion raised. (That’s a one and nine zeros. Nine!)
“It’s not unrealistic at all, given the amount raised and spent in 2008 and the amount Republican interest groups and 527s will spend against him,” said a former Obama administration official.
A look at the trend line of fundraising for presidential candidates over the past several elections suggests a doubling effect every four years.
In 2008, Obama raised an eye-popping $745 million, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) collected $368 million. Total spending, including third-party candidates, amounted to $1.3 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Four years earlier, President George W. Bush brought in $367 million while Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) collected $328 million. Total spending in 2004 was about half that of 2008’s: $718 million.
The key difference between 2004 and 2008 was that Obama became the first person to opt out of public financing for the general election since the adoption of the current campaign finance system in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
That last sentence, about Obama’s opt-out of public campaign financing, reminds us of an oft-forgotten fact about the man who just hates the effect of money on politics.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
64 comments Add your comment
Road Scholar
December 13th, 2010
11:18 am
Kyle are you proposing that the presidential race has a fundraising/budget ceiling? In other words, both sides would be limited to predetermined amount that could be spent by each candidate? This would limit the Supreme Court ruling that companies are “people”. If that’s the case why not tax business at the same rates as the personnal taxpayer?
Road Scholar
December 13th, 2010
11:19 am
Oh, bad manners. Kyle, Good morning ! How was your weekend?
jconservative
December 13th, 2010
11:26 am
My guess on why Obama hated the Citizens United ruling would be the opposite of your guess. My guess as to the reason he hated the decision is exactly the reason he stated. And I agreed with him.
But we are only guessing.
Kyle Wingfield
December 13th, 2010
11:27 am
Good morning to you, too!
I’m not proposing a ceiling at all. Given the kinds of things that we collectively spend a couple of billion dollars on, I think presidential elections are worthy of that kind of financial emphasis.
But I’m also not the one complaining about court decisions that make political-speech laws more — dare I say — liberal.
Keeping It Real
December 13th, 2010
11:28 am
So sad. Our political system is just like our criminal justice system…you basically get what you pay for (for better or worse).
Keeping It Real
December 13th, 2010
11:43 am
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption of high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.
I feel more anxiety at this moment for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.”
Abraham Lincoln, November 21st, 1864
I agree with the clear concerns stated by both Obama and Lincoln.
retiredds
December 13th, 2010
11:58 am
All of this money is nothing more than, the USA is for sale to the highest bidder. See below as one of a trillion political funding examples (pay for play). The political money game knows no bounds and affects (infects) ALL politics:national, state, and local.
The marketplace as it functions now “adds up to higher costs to all Americans,” said Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates most derivatives. More oversight of the banks in this market is needed, he said.
But big banks influence the rules governing derivatives through a variety of industry groups. The banks’ latest point of influence are clearinghouses like ICE Trust, which holds the monthly meetings with the nine bankers in New York.
Under the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, many derivatives will be traded via such clearinghouses. Mr. Gensler wants to lessen banks’ control over these new institutions. But Republican lawmakers, many of whom received large campaign contributions from bankers who want to influence how the derivatives rules are written, say they plan to push back against much of the coming reform. (”A Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trading in Derivatives”) – NY Times
By LOUISE STORY
Published: December 11, 2010
NotHotlanta
December 13th, 2010
12:18 pm
BHO won’t raise as much campaign cash in 2012 because his GOP opponent won’t be tainted by the stench of the Bush administration as was McCain. Bush was such a pathetically incompetent dumbass that no Republican candidate, regardless of his campaign cash war chest, could have won in 2008. I expect things to be very different the next go-round.
somewhereinga
December 13th, 2010
12:22 pm
So it seems, Kyle, that the only thing you’re complaing about is that Obama got more money than McCain, right?
Left wing management
December 13th, 2010
12:27 pm
You’re using the wrong example, Kyle. You know very well that this administration has been captured by big Wall Street money almost as thoroughly as the most pro-finance Republican member of congress. So to make this an Obama vs Citizens United is disingenuous at best.
JDW
December 13th, 2010
12:29 pm
Kyle, the real question is why you or anyone else would support the ruling….I just don’t remember By the Corporation, Of the Corporation, and For the Corporation in the Declaration of Independence. Giving Corporations the same rights as citizens is a slippery slope with no good end.
Toby
December 13th, 2010
12:30 pm
And you get paid to chum the water most every day, what a country.
Jefferson
December 13th, 2010
12:35 pm
Money just gives one a louder voice. (and a weak back)
Double Standard
December 13th, 2010
12:49 pm
ObozoCare has been ruled unconstitutional, he he ha ha.
Guy Incognito
December 13th, 2010
12:51 pm
“Judge in Va. strikes down federal health care law”
And now…….on to the Supremes
Left wing management
December 13th, 2010
12:53 pm
Kyle, what do you make about your upcoming speaker’s weird penchant for bawling in the middle of speeches and interviews?
What do you make of that?
Can you imagine Pelosi bawling in the middle of an interview, the Rush Limbaugh set would have a field day.
Guy Incognito
December 13th, 2010
1:03 pm
This coming from the side that brought us, “I feel your pain.” (cue: bite lower lip)
rdh
December 13th, 2010
1:05 pm
Yeah. It is really interesting to see the Democrats whine, whine whine… and did I mention WHINE?… about how much money the Republicans spent in 2010. The fact is that in the 2010, Democrats outspent Republicans, and in 2008 Democrats spent TWICE AS MUCH as Republicans. Truly, the Democrats are so afraid that Republicans might reach parity in spending that they whine incessantly to draw attention away from their own spending. Look at NPR in the last election cycle. Piece after piece dedicated to Republican spending… all the while the Democrats spent more!
And all of this doesn’t EVEN begin to match against the non-stop free publicity that that MSM gives the Democrats. MSM news sources, save Fox, donates as much free air time, speech time, etc. to more than match anything the Republicans can purchase.
And still, the Democrats whine. Whine and insult are their two failing strategies to demonize the Republican party.
Andy
December 13th, 2010
1:13 pm
Most of the democratic fund raising came from small donations, unlike republican donations, which came from fatcats.
Linda
December 13th, 2010
1:16 pm
I thought unions were corporations. So, it depends on whether the corporations back Dems. or Reps.? I get it.
Hillbilly Deluxe
December 13th, 2010
1:25 pm
Doesn’t make sense that people will spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that pays around $400k a year.
AmVet
December 13th, 2010
1:30 pm
The real reason this American hates the Citizens United ruling is that it is but one more major piece of the puzzle allowing corporate interests to sublimate the sovereignty of we the people.
A decade ago 72% of respondents believed that corporations had too much control over their lives.
What do you think that number is now?
Corporate personhood is arguably the greatest travesty in all of American history and certainly the greatest crisis we are now facing. Yep, even bigger than the Islamonutjobs…
carlosgvv
December 13th, 2010
1:36 pm
It isn’t just about how much money a candidate raises but WHERE the money comes from. When the big corporations give far more money to the Republicans than the Democrats you know who the party of the rich and powerful is.
Linda
December 13th, 2010
1:48 pm
Corporations are people, nothing more than small & large groups of individuals. Individual Americans own them, invest in them, work for them & loan money to them.
StJ
December 13th, 2010
1:53 pm
While the original intent was noble (remove the corrupting influence of money in elections), the law as passed was a complete (and uncontitutional) failure. (The irony here is that the push to pass the bill was bankrolled in part by George Soros’ “Open Society Institute”.) Several members of Congress openly admitted that the purpose of the bill was to silence advocacy groups (the NRA in particular):
“If my colleagues care about gun control, then campaign finance is their issue so that the NRA does not call the shots.” – Jan Schakowsky, D-IL
Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-WI) had said during the original debate over this legislation that it was his intention to silence groups like NRA.
President Bush signed the law despite “reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising”.
It is interesting to note that in the State of the Union speech, Obama said: “…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.” The ruling by the SC does not overturn the ban on political donations by foreign corporations and the prohibition on any involvement by foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending by U.S. subsidiaries. Apparently Obama didn’t read that part, or was deliberately misleading people with that statement.
The law had no effect other than to consolidate political power by those who had plenty of power already (politicians and the left-leaning MSM). The SC did the right thing, as much as the Liberal Left hates it. Good riddance.
DannyX
December 13th, 2010
1:58 pm
Is this how Republicans plan on dealing with this issue? The same plan you used on climate change? Instead of debating the issue attach an Al Gore type bogeyman for diversion.
I think this issue demands much more attention. This was the definition of “activist judge.”
This issue is not about “he does it too.” “Or he did it first.” Unions aren’t people, corporations aren’t people.
This should be one of those common sense issues that everyone gets behind. It amazes me that the “We the People” Tea Party can be so absent in this debate. Maybe it’s because corporate Fox News and the billion dollar Texas bros haven’t mentioned the subject.
JDW
December 13th, 2010
2:00 pm
Linda
December 13th, 2010
1:16 pm
“I thought unions were corporations. So, it depends on whether the corporations back Dems. or Reps.? I get it.”
Did you also miss the fact that many corporations are owned by foreign nationals and companies that are now legally allowed to participate in the US political discourse…without revealing their identity?
Really I don’t think you do “get it”
AmVet
December 13th, 2010
2:07 pm
“Corporations are people…”
Absolutely, 100% incorrect.
I’m not sure what role I played, if any, but I raised so much cain about the Dunwoody Chamber of Commerce using the slogan, “Businesses are Citizens Too!” that they just recently changed it to “Smart People. Smart Business.”
Outstanding.
C’mon, cons, show a little backbone and stand up for OUR blood-soaked and sacred sovereignty!
Linda
December 13th, 2010
2:18 pm
JDW @ 2:00, Most corps. headquartered in America are Amer. corps.
However, corps. operating in America owned by foreign nationals are subject to US law, especially laws effecting their bottom line, laws passed by the fed. & state govts. as well as the local municipalities in which they are located. These corps. should not be censored. Foreign corps. operating in the US pay taxes to all levels of govt. & hire Americans.
Hillbilly Deluxe
December 13th, 2010
2:27 pm
If corporations are people, why don’t they face the same liabilities as a sole proprietor?
Linda
December 13th, 2010
2:31 pm
What is really sad is that campaign contributions go primarily to travel to make speeches & to advertising.
Since Obama’s short stint in the Senate, 2 yrs. on the campaign trail & 4 yrs. as president by the time of the 2012 elections, what more can he say to get his message across?
What a waste of money!
DannyX
December 13th, 2010
2:35 pm
If corporations are people every single Enron employee should have done jail time. We would also require prison space for all of their desks, computers, and office towers. Corporate jails would be expensive.
ronald
December 13th, 2010
2:52 pm
Carlosgv says “When the big corporations give far more money to the Republicans than the Democrats you know who the party of the rich and powerful is.”
Carlos- How do you feel about your boy Harry Reid’s latest stunt? Planning to propose a bill that would legalize online gambling in the US that would be controlled by Las Vegas casinos. Does that sound slimy at all? Attempting to legalize and hand over control of a multi-billion dollar industry to the the same casinos that bankrolled his campaign? Yes, that is the definition of slimy my friend…. So shut your piehole about who the corporations own and don’t own. Harry Reid is the biggest culprit..
carlosgvv
December 13th, 2010
2:57 pm
Linda
Big corporations are large groups of individuals. Unfortunately, only a very few people in these big corporations have any real power and most of them seem to have little or no conscience. The one and only thing they care about is enriching their own personal estates and they will do this any way they can.
ronald
December 13th, 2010
3:00 pm
“Unfortunately, only a very few people in these big corporations have any real power and most of them seem to have little or no conscience. The one and only thing they care about is enriching their own personal estates and they will do this any way they can.”
More generalization that adds up to nothing. What you are spewing is called CLASS ENVY. You’re just like a racist in that you make assumptions about a certain group of people without any proof or logic to support your viewpoint. You find 1 example of a greedy CEO and you assume they are all alike. That is exactly the same as the person who sees a black guy robbing a store and assumes all blacks are theives. Carlos- People like YOU are the problem.
Tommy Maddox
December 13th, 2010
3:04 pm
Oh what a great day!
No More Progressives!
December 13th, 2010
3:08 pm
Andy
December 13th, 2010
1:13 pm
Most of the democratic fund raising came from small donations, unlike republican donations, which came from fatcats.
Ever heard of George Soros, Obama’s boss? How much did he contribute?
False Evidence Appearing Real (FEAR)
December 13th, 2010
3:10 pm
Obama hated and rightfully “called out” the ruling because, as a true Constitutional scholar, the President recognized the Roberts court had overreached thier authority – to the detriment of We, The People. Don’t you see that Kyle?? You should come over to the other side – you’d be in good company.
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
Abraham Lincoln
“Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.”
Ronald Reagan
No More Progressives!
December 13th, 2010
3:12 pm
JDW
December 13th, 2010
2:00 pm
Linda
December 13th, 2010
1:16 pm
Did you also miss the fact that many corporations are owned by foreign nationals and companies that are now legally allowed to participate in the US political discourse…without revealing their identity?
Like Charlie Trie, China and Johnny Chung in 1996?
Linda
December 13th, 2010
3:16 pm
carlosgvv @ 2:57, Corps. & our fed. govt. are similar. Major stockholders vote for corporate BODs whereas citizens vote for leaders in DC. Only a few people in corps. & in the fed. govt. have any real power. I don’t think that leaders of corps. have any less conscience nor more interest in enriching themselves than our corrupt, elitist leaders in DC. Corporate officers can be fired within a few hours, but it takes 2 yrs. in the House, 4 yrs. in the White House & 6 yrs. in the Senate to get rid of those who disappoint us.
ronald
December 13th, 2010
3:23 pm
Linda-
Carlosgvv doesn’t really care if a corporate CEO has a conscience or not, furthermore Carlos doesn’t have the moral compass or understanding of why corporations exist, in order to make such a distinction. There are several who post here at AJC (like Carlosgvv and Kamchak) who attack anyone with wealth and power, for no other reason than they have wealth and power. For whatever reason, they associate wealth with being evil and assume that wealth is only gained by those who exploit and abuse others. It is CLASS ENVY at its worst…
Get real
December 13th, 2010
3:24 pm
Where in the heck did you come up with Obama being a scholar on anything ….especially the Constitution? He, Pelosi and Reed are doing everythng they can to circumvent the Constitution and every other right fought for since that first Tea Party in Boston. The Dems want to take US out of the USA …… with their “spread the wealth” mentality. I for one have worked a lot of years for what I have and DO NOT think that I SHOULD HAVE TO GIVE ANYTHING TO ANYONE TOO LAZY TO GET OFF THEIR A** AND WORK. I do not beleive in SOCIAL ANYTHING. ….. It is a shame to pay any baby makers to do just that and not take care of the children …. And that goes for whoever is involved in making the babies. IF you get a monthly check “cause you don’t have an education and can’t work them hours and wants to talk on da phone all da time …then make them pick up the trash on the highways since the state can’t pay to do it.
magog
December 13th, 2010
3:25 pm
every time boner cries a little eichmann gets his wings…
AmVet
December 13th, 2010
3:37 pm
Once upon a time, before the white collar criminals convinced people that avarice was king, there was this quaint concept of business self-restraint known as “enlightened self interest”.
Now we languish collectively (get it?) in the aftermath of the attempted corporate destruction of capitalism because of a “sustained orgy of greed and reckless behavior”.
When state governments started chartering corporations in the early 1800s, these relatively small business interests were not supposed to be our masters. No one contemplated he emergence of gigantic global conglomerates using governments and trade agreements for their narrow ends. Corporations were seen as servants under the vigilant rule of law.
That is a vision we need to recreate.
Stand tall, cons! Quit being lackeys and quit groveling in the hopes that your paymasters will throw you an extra piece of silver or two, now and then.
And fight to reclaim OUR supreme and independent power and authority in OUR government!
JDW
December 13th, 2010
3:38 pm
No More Progressives!
December 13th, 2010
3:12 pm
“Like Charlie Trie, China and Johnny Chung in 1996?”
So whats your point?
Johnny Chung broke the law got caught and convicted of funneling a few hundred thousand in illegal contributions….under the Citizens United ruling all he would have to do today is create a corporation and LEGALLY funnel as much money from anyone he wishes…China, Iran, North Korea. If they want to spend billions influencing races today they are perfectly legal in doing so. If I were Chung I would be applying for a pardon based on the fact that his offense is now legal.
Trie was convicted of making contributions in someone else’s name…again today all he would need to do is incorporate and spend to his hearts content.
DannyX
December 13th, 2010
3:39 pm
“For whatever reason, they associate wealth with being evil..”
Maybe they read it in your Bible.
Linda
December 13th, 2010
3:40 pm
carlosgvv @ 2:57, I agree with ronald @ 3:00 for 2 reasons.
Even if you are not religious, most people are moral & minimally abide by at least a few of the Ten Commandments, especially the ones about murder, theft, lying, adultery, etc. Right there among those is envy. It’s sinful, immoral &, frankly, childish & unbecoming.
Class warfare has been alive & well in the USA for the last 2 yrs. It’s a further attempt to divide our nation & anyone who can’t see thru this &, worse, participates in it, is a dupe.
Your neighbor might think you make too much money, but your mama would disagree. Always listen to your mama & do your best.
JDW
December 13th, 2010
3:43 pm
Linda
December 13th, 2010
2:18 pm
“However, corps. operating in America owned by foreign nationals are subject to US law, especially laws effecting their bottom line, laws passed by the fed. & state govts. as well as the local municipalities in which they are located. These corps. should not be censored. Foreign corps. operating in the US pay taxes to all levels of govt. & hire Americans.”
So, in your world, all China, North Korea, or Iran have to do is create a corporation and spend as much money as they like on political races from dogcatcher to President…with no one ever knowing who is behind the campaign?
Rafe Hollister
December 13th, 2010
3:50 pm
FEAR
Your “Constitutional Scholar” just got overruled when the Virginia Fed Judge ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. I question the whole “scholar” tag attributed to a guy who doesn’t even act like he ever read the document. I have never seen anything in the Constitution about Wealthy Redistribution and Social Justice, his two most obvious goals.
Linda
December 13th, 2010
3:50 pm
False @ 3:10, Obama said on Public Radio in ‘01, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth & sort of more basic issues of political & economic justice in this society. Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the fed. govt. can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the fed. govt. must do on your behalf.”
That is from a Constitutional scholar?