Obama to Strike Back on Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Financing

This ruling seems so odd. It says that corporations are people too. The judges making the decision said it was a ruling for free speech. It kind of takes the shine off the Supreme Court and is a reminder that all of our institutions are fallible because they're interpreted by humans, which is the main reason I'm against the death penalty. You can read the SCOTUS decision here.
Read the video transcript.

Obama:

This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.

I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.

The White House intends to strike back:

When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with Members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision. We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done.

Obama's Statement on SCOTUS Decision

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

Sen. Olympia Snowe has also come out against the ruling, which will generally be a good thing for republican candidates, according to NPR:

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority "profoundly misguided." He said, "The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom. NPR

Go Obama Go

Raise boodles of money!

Heck, I just contributed for that cool new t-shirt. 

I don't know what all this hoopla is about -- that he "flipped" on public campaign financing. So what. Obama NEEDS the money to run a widespread campaign. How many people knew who Obama was a year ago? Not many. 

He needs to outspend McCain. Look at what happened in the primary. Obama spent tons of money in Pennsylvania and lost. Obama is still introducing himself to people. Once they know him, and they're inclined to be a democrat, they are likely to become a supporter. 

There isn't anything Obama could do that could change my mind. I know who he is. I've read his books. I've studied his stance on the issues. 

I trust his judgement. 

Do I agree with him on everything? No. I'm still uncertain about the NAFTA issue, but he's head and shoulders above John McCain. 

He's smarter than people know, constantly outwitting everyone. 

But the bottom line is Obama cares about the poorer among us, in the tradition of JFK and Martin Luther King. He supports a bottom up democracy. From there, all he needs to do is surround himself by talented and brilliant people and we're on our way. 

Hillary Tapping Wealthy Donors For More

hillary tapped elton john, now she's digging up money from her wealthy donors in a "creative" way. why would they bother to give her more money? can you imagine what we could do with all the money that has been raised by both campaigns? wow.

nyt: The Obama fund-raising juggernaut has some of Mrs. Clinton’s most devoted supporters worried and searching for a new way to support her candidacy. Alan Patricof, a national finance chairman for Mrs. Clinton, said four people had called him in the past month to discuss starting a so-called 527 group — named for the section of the tax code the groups are organized under — on her behalf.

“These are people who have maxed out to Hillary and would like to do a lot more but know they cannot do it through the campaign and thus are looking for other legal ways to give and raise more money under a different status,” Mr. Patricof said. “As I have pointed out, once they do that, they can no longer participate in the finance committee calls and they have to do it outside and away from the campaign itself.”

Such groups are potentially attractive for affluent donors because contributions are not capped as they are for candidates. But campaign finance experts say 527s can be legally treacherous; hefty fines were levied against many of the groups after the 2004 election, and the rules that govern them remain hazy.

The groups are barred from coordinating with campaigns and explicitly calling for the election or defeat of a candidate; instead they are limited to advocating on issues. But exactly what they can say about candidates when they solicit contributions or spend them is sometimes unclear.

One such group, American Leadership Project, which on Wednesday began broadcasting commercials in Pennsylvania praising Mrs. Clinton on health care, offers an indication of how challenging it could be to raise money for an independent effort.

The group has raised only about $1.5 million so far. As a result, it spent only about $425,000 in Pennsylvania, after doling out about $750,000 for commercials in Texas and Ohio earlier this year. It intends to play a more substantial role in Indiana, its leaders said.

Some potential donors have been reluctant to support an effort that they feared could get them into legal trouble. Others wanted the group to attack Mr. Obama, a tactic the group’s leaders have resisted.

Obama's Campaign Finances Strongest

this speaks to obama's ability to organize and manage finances.

nyt: Of all the candidates, Democratic or Republican, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is in the strongest financial shape. Of the $38.8 million in cash on hand, a total of $31.5 million is earmarked for the primary race, with only $7.3 million set aside for the general campaign. This primary war chest is more than Mrs. Clinton’s and Mr. McCain’s combined.

On top of that, Mr. Obama’s campaign is almost debt-free. He ended the month owing only $625,059. Over all, Mr. Obama has raised $190 million since he began his campaign, and spent $158 million — the most of any candidate.

Mrs. Clinton, of New York, spent less in February — $31.8 million, or $1 million a day — in the weeks leading up to her March 4 victories in Texas and Ohio, than Mr. Obama — who spent $43 million, or nearly $1.5 million a day.

Obama on Campaign Finance

on to vermont, rhode island, texas and ohio: Upcoming primary and caucus schedule
the numbers so far: Delegate tracker
see texas rally below.

USA Today: In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.

As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.

We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.

I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.

Sen. Barack Obama .