State of the Union...

[TheBeast]

One of the best parts was him looking down on the supreme court justices in attendance and just flat out lying about them.


Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests ? including foreign corporations ? to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

[CoeburnCane]

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

Per this, it did open up the ability of corporations to spend & lobby endlessly. Also, I didn't see it defined in any of that whether a "foreign corporation" simply means a foreign corporation doing business in the US, or a foreign corporation w/o any US interests. If it's the former in this ruling, then the POTUS' statement was indeed false, but only as it pertains to foreign businesses--he's still correct about American corporations... if it's the latter, then that def. leaves wiggle room for foreign corporations w/American business interests free to spend whatever money they want in political campaigns.

[TheBeast]

Here is the full layout that answers your concerns.

From: Obama?s Shameless Demagoguery - Bradley A. Smith - The Corner on National Review Online

The full story is this:

(1) The Citizens United case dealt with a blanket ban on corporate expenditures. The Court struck down the ban, which is part of 2 USC 441b.

(2) A separate section of the law, 2 USC 441e, prohibits ?foreign nationals? from making expenditures or contributions. ?Foreign nationals? includes corporations that are not incorporated or headquartered in the United States. This is an extremely broad prohibition that applies to any U.S. election (including state and local elections) and to any activity ?in connection with? an election. The Citizens United ruling doesn?t touch this prohibition and specifically notes that it makes no judgment about foreign corporations.

(3) This would allow a U.S. corporation, incorporated and headquartered in the United States, to make expenditures (Obama, remember, referred to ?foreign corporations?). But . . .

(4) FEC regulations at 11 CFR 110.20 further delineate the prohibition:

A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.

Additionally, the FEC requires that any funds so spent come from U.S.-generated income (in other words, the parent corporation cannot send capital to the U.S. subsidiary and then have the subsidiary spend that in connection with U.S. elections). Therefore . . .

(5) You could have a foreign-owned but U.S.-incorporated-and-headquartered subsidiary, using U.S. funds, controlled solely by U.S. nationals, make expenditures. However, bear in mind that . . .

(6) Such a corporation is already eligible to operate a PAC ? which can make unlimited expenditures and also make contributions directly to candidates (under the same restrictions of U.S. funds managed by U.S. nationals) ? and to spend unlimited sums from any source. Its executives and managers who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (i.e., the same people who would have to decide on any corporate spending) are already eligible to spend unlimited sums on U.S. elections.

So claiming that the Citizens United decision will allow ?foreign corporations to spend without limits in our elections? is as misleading as saying that ?Obama and the Democratic Congress have allowed foreign corporations to spend without limits in our elections.? The corporate ban is not about foreign contributions, and the government never tried to defend it as such. To suggest that this ruling allows foreign expenditures in elections is wholly misleading.

We might say that the president?s statement is not a lie, because it contains a small kernel of truth. But that kernel of truth is what separates lies from demagoguery. The president?s statement was shameless demagoguery.

? Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School.

[R13]

Exactly! Obama has promised a couple of things that haven't happened... HC being passed, and when was Gitmo supposed to be closed? oh that's right... that deadline already passed.

What about the 5 days of public comment before passing a bill? There's been atleast one bill Obama signed within 2 days of the Senate agreeing on the final language and putting in on his desk. The Ledbetter Act
What about doubling the money for after school programs? That didn't happen either. The spending for 2010 is only 3 percent higher... last i checked that's not double


What about a rule in congress saying companies that are bankrupt can't give big bonuses to their big guys? We are still wait for that to even be proposed.

What about giving enemy combatants habeas corpus rights? Thank God he wasn't done that yet.

And my favorite... "Communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff [will be] disclosed to the public." Obama said this... hahaha thats's the funniest thing i've heard yet. All they've done is release visitor logs, which are 100 days old or older when they are released. That's still a big difference from "regulatory policymaking".

How about this promise from Obama's website... "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration." Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Ethics ... one example is William Lynn. He was a lobbyist for Raytheon. What does Raytheon do? They develop defense technology. What position is the former lobbyist Lynn guy holding? He's a top operations manager at the Pentagon and he decides who the U.S contracts for defense technology and the budget for such programs. He was last a lobbyist just one year before he got the job.

Shall I go on ?

Gitmo is in the works genius.

PolitiFact | Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center - Obama promise No. 177:

And so is the HC reform, I know you're not used to Presidents actually doing anything.


Doubling money for the programs? Post it or post that it's not in the process.

And about the bonuses, not even been proposed? lol

http://www.hostboard.com/forums/poli...bout-time.html

And there was a loophole created with Lynn, because he was great for the position, the ban is still in place...so yes, please go on. Lay off the Beck.


Links are your friend too, copying and pasting without it, not so much.

[CoeburnCane]

Thanks for the explanation Tommy.

It does still open the door for foreign owned corps w/US headquarters to give. Granted, they can only give US dollars, can't (theoretically) move money from another nation to the US HQ and use it in US elections...but the thing they're missing is that a foreign owned corp still gives the orders to US nationals running a US HQ for foreign corp. So they have some puppet strings they can at least indirectly pull to have some sway in US elections.

I'm just not a fan of making this ruling b/c it makes it a game of I have more money than the next guy, I can buy the votes I need to make something happen. Not saying that doesn't happen in some ways already, this just puts it out on main street and makes it legal.

I appreciate the clarification though.

[R13]

Obama is right on this...we won't know for sure unless there is a ruling, but he wasn't wrong. Overstating? Sure. Wrong? Nope.

Experts said Obama was correct that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion. But because the majority justices didn't actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies -- in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision -- our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...s-foreign-com/

[1inStripes]

Obama admits health care overhaul may die on Hill - Yahoo! News

[R13]

Obama admits health care overhaul may die on Hill - Yahoo! News

Obama: I?m not giving up on health reform - Politics- msnbc.com


WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Saturday sought to assure despondent Democrats he would not abandon his commitment to overhauling health care and would work to counter GOP challenges to their congressional dominance.

At its winter meeting, a defiant Democratic Party worked to project a message of strength even as loyalists acknowledged the prospect of several defeats in November. The party that controls the White House typically loses seats during midterm elections at an average rate of 28 net seats. President Bill Clinton, the last Democratic commander in chief, lost control of Congress in his first term and Democrats privately are predicting it could happen again.

Obama, looking to write his own history, warned fellow Democrats that "we have to acknowledge that change can't come quickly enough." He said political leaders must plot their way forward to November with an understanding of the economic difficulties Americans face.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

"I understand their frustration. You understand it as well," Obama said.

'The other party'
A government report on Friday said 9.7 percent of the country was unemployed. Distrust of Washington has grown and spurred an anti-Washington sentiment that sent scores of activists to a "tea party" convention in Nashville on the same day. As witness to the tone, Republican Sen. Scott Brown won a special election to take the seat of the late, liberal Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Democrats also lost gubernatorial contests in Virginia and New Jersey.

Obama sought to energize his base against what he called "the other party." He urged Democrats to work with their Republican counterparts.

"We can't solve all of our problems alone," Obama said, as the audience sat in silence.

While Republicans have stood in solid opposition to the president's proposed overhaul of health care, Obama insisted he wasn't willing to abandon his top domestic priority that consumed months of his agenda and has produced slim hints of victory.

"Let me be clear: I am not going to walk away from health reform," Obama said, bringing the audience in the hotel ballroom to their feet.

"We can't return to the dereliction of duty," Obama said. "America can't afford to wait, and we can't look backward."

His party, for certain, would prefer not to revisit its ordeals of 2009, which produced some victories but hardly the narrative that would deliver them victories this year.

"I know we've gone through a tough year. But we've gone through tougher," Obama said.

DNC chairman Tim Kaine, the former Democratic governor of Virginia who saw a Republican follow him into office, said they should not be downtrodden.

"The ghost of Harry Truman would kill us if he heard us complaining about having only 59 Democratic senators," Kaine said.

"We've had our ups and downs since the inauguration," Kaine conceded.

He warned, though, that Republicans were unlikely to support Obama's health care agenda.

"We might get one or two," he said.

[TheBeast]

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests ? including foreign corporations ? to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

With all the BP stuff I had to bump this thread when I remembered this part and since finding that as he was condemning the act he was practicing it. I am reffering to him taking nearly 1 million in campaign donations from BP. Why isn't he offering up that money to aid in the recovery and clean up. If this isn't the most two-faced say whatever fits at the moment person to ever live I don't who it could be.

[R13]

Wow, like are you being serious right now? I've seen you grasp, but this is hilarious. You do know he has no control over campaign money, right? Campaign money can't just be alotted for anything, pretty sure its written law and illegal what you're talking about.