millions of dollars to the Republican Party, folks are debating corporations' ability to dominate elections with money following a Supreme Court decision earlier this year.
Some of the larger corporations, including Fox News, contribute more money to Republicans than Democrats.
In response to the Republican
blockage of a bill that would disallow corporations the ability to give
large amounts of money as a bloc, President Obama presented his views in his
weekly address that follows:
"As
the political season heats up, Americans are already being inundated
with the usual phone calls, mailings, and TV ads from campaigns all
across the country. But this summer, they’re also seeing a flood of
attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don’t
know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them.
the political season heats up, Americans are already being inundated
with the usual phone calls, mailings, and TV ads from campaigns all
across the country. But this summer, they’re also seeing a flood of
attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don’t
know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them.
The
reason this is happening is because of a decision by the Supreme Court
in the Citizens United case – a decision that now allows big
corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our
elections. They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads – and worst
of all, they don’t even have to reveal who is actually paying for
them. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You
don’t know if it’s BP. You don’t know if it’s a big insurance company
or a Wall Street Bank. A group can hide behind a phony name like
“Citizens for a Better Future,” even if a more accurate name would be
“Corporations for Weaker Oversight.”
reason this is happening is because of a decision by the Supreme Court
in the Citizens United case – a decision that now allows big
corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our
elections. They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads – and worst
of all, they don’t even have to reveal who is actually paying for
them. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You
don’t know if it’s BP. You don’t know if it’s a big insurance company
or a Wall Street Bank. A group can hide behind a phony name like
“Citizens for a Better Future,” even if a more accurate name would be
“Corporations for Weaker Oversight.”
We
tried to fix this last month. There was a proposal supported by
Democrats and Republicans that would’ve required corporate political
advertisers to reveal who’s funding their activities. When special
interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad
would have to appear in the advertisement and take responsibility for it
– like a company’s CEO or an organization’s biggest contributor. And
foreign-controlled corporations and entities would be restricted from
spending money to influence American elections – just as they were in
the past.
tried to fix this last month. There was a proposal supported by
Democrats and Republicans that would’ve required corporate political
advertisers to reveal who’s funding their activities. When special
interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad
would have to appear in the advertisement and take responsibility for it
– like a company’s CEO or an organization’s biggest contributor. And
foreign-controlled corporations and entities would be restricted from
spending money to influence American elections – just as they were in
the past.
You
would think that making these reforms would be a matter of common
sense. You’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence
over our elections wouldn’t be a partisan issue.
would think that making these reforms would be a matter of common
sense. You’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence
over our elections wouldn’t be a partisan issue.
But
the Republican leaders in Congress said no. In fact, they used their
power to block the issue from even coming up for a vote.
the Republican leaders in Congress said no. In fact, they used their
power to block the issue from even coming up for a vote.
This
can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the
public in the dark. They don’t want you to know which interests are
paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the
truth are people with something to hide.
can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the
public in the dark. They don’t want you to know which interests are
paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the
truth are people with something to hide.
Well,
we cannot allow the corporate takeover of our democracy. So we’re
going to continue to fight for reform and transparency. And I urge all
of you to take up the same fight. Let’s challenge every elected
official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us
in stopping it.
we cannot allow the corporate takeover of our democracy. So we’re
going to continue to fight for reform and transparency. And I urge all
of you to take up the same fight. Let’s challenge every elected
official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us
in stopping it.
At a
time of such challenge for America, we can’t afford these political
games. Millions of Americans are struggling to get by, and their voices
shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret, special
interest advertising. Their voices should be heard.
time of such challenge for America, we can’t afford these political
games. Millions of Americans are struggling to get by, and their voices
shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret, special
interest advertising. Their voices should be heard.
Let’s
not forget that a century ago, it was a Republican President – Teddy
Roosevelt – who first tried to tackle the issue of corporate influence
on our elections. He actually called it “one of the principal sources
of corruption in our political affairs.” And he proposed strict limits
on corporate influence in elections. “Every special interest is
entitled to justice,” he said. “but not one is entitled to a vote in
Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public
office.”
not forget that a century ago, it was a Republican President – Teddy
Roosevelt – who first tried to tackle the issue of corporate influence
on our elections. He actually called it “one of the principal sources
of corruption in our political affairs.” And he proposed strict limits
on corporate influence in elections. “Every special interest is
entitled to justice,” he said. “but not one is entitled to a vote in
Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public
office.”
We
now face a similar challenge, and a similar opportunity to prevent
special interests from gaining even more clout in Washington. This
shouldn’t be a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. This is an issue
that goes to whether or not we will have a democracy that works for
ordinary Americans – a government of, by, and for the people. Let’s
show the cynics and the special interests that we still can.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Say something constructive. Negative remarks and name-calling are not allowed.