Search

Categories

Total Results

No Record Found

View All Results
DONATE

Public sides with Obama on tiff with Supreme Court over corporation money in elections

With the polls showing that 80 percent of the public is against unleashing special interest money in elections, analysts suggest that the president and others may have some leeway in stemming the effect of the Supreme Court’s  recent decision allowing unrestricted spending for and against political candidates. -db

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
March 15, 2010
By Cynthia Tucker

The political process is already awash in money and lobbyists who have the ear of members of Congress, state legislatures, governors and the president. That may be why the U.S. Supreme Court ruling giving corporations “free speech” – in other words, allowing them to spend money freely in the political process — is so unpopular with the public. Some analysts speculate that Obama’s decision to criticize the Supreme Court for the ruling could also be very popular with voters.

From legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin:

Obama has lots of leeway to vigorously criticize the court, and to mobilize the public against it: in fact, presidents have always increased their popularity by court bashing over the long term. But they have to be perceived as defending the public interest rather than their own prerogatives.

Similarly, Roberts has some leeway in responding to Obama’s criticism, as Hughes did to Roosevelt, but he has to be seen to be defending judicial independence rather than the partisan interests of the conservative majority.

In the end, though, the battle will be won or lost in the court of public opinion. Opposition to the decision underlying the White House-Supreme Court drama — the court’s ruling to allow a more active campaign role for corporations and unions — is high at 80 percent, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC news survey. If it remains high, then the conservatives on the Supreme Court should plan their next moves very carefully.

From the Washington Post:

In his State of the Union address, Obama sharply criticized the court’s decision, which allows corporations and unions to spend freely for and against specific candidates. Corporate spending, which until now has had to pass through political action committees, has traditionally favored Republican candidates.

There is little the administration can do to reverse the ruling, short of pushing a constitutional amendment. But White House officials are weighing how hard to push legislative proposals by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) that would put some restrictions on corporate participation, such as requiring shareholders to approve political spending by their companies.

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, David Axelrod, a senior Obama adviser, warned that the high court’s decision could bring about “a corporate takeover of our elections.”

“We’ve got important elections coming up,” Gibbs told reporters last week. “And the question is: Are the special interests going to play a bigger role in those with their contributions than they normally would?”

Copyright 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution