Obama Turns Up Heat Over Campaign Spending Decision

That process got under way Friday, a White House official said, when Norm Eisen, Mr. Obama’s special counsel for ethics and government reform, met with two leading Democrats — Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland — to begin talks on how Congress might proceed.

The sharply divided decision overturned parts of a 2002 law — known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, after the two senators who sponsored it — that severely restricted political advertising paid for by corporations and unions in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before general elections.

The five justices who sided with the majority characterized it as a victory for the First Amendment and freedom of speech. The ruling was expected to unleash a torrent of attack advertisements in the coming midterm elections; many analysts said it would benefit Republicans in a year when Democrats are already on the defensive.

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly assailed the influence of “special interests” in blocking his proposed health care overhaul and tough new regulations on banks; in his address on Saturday, he warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling would make enacting legislation all the more difficult.

“All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs offshore,” Mr. Obama said, adding that the ruling would also make it “more difficult to pass common-sense laws” to promote energy independence or expand health care.

President Obama took aim at the Supreme Court on Saturday, saying the justices had “handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists” with last week’s 5-to-4 decision to lift restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption? (January 24, 2010)
Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit (January 22, 2010)
24 States’ Laws Open to Attack After Campaign Finance Ruling (January 23, 2010)

The latest on President Obama, his administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

The decision will have major political implications for this year’s midterm elections. After it was announced, Mr. Obama immediately instructed his advisers to work with Congress on legislation that would restore some of the limits the court lifted. But in his weekly address on Saturday, he sharply stepped up his criticism of the high court.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “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.”

How much the administration can do about the ruling remains unclear, although Mr. Obama said he had instructed his advisers to work with Congress on a “forceful, bipartisan response.”

Obama to collect $90 billion from banks thru 'financial crisis responsibility fee'

At 11:50 a.m., the President is going to announce a new fee on banks, designed to recoup losses from the TARP program. Here's what the “financial crisis responsibility fee" is and does:

    President Obama plans to call on Thursday for taxing about 50 big banks and major financial institutions for at least the next decade to recoup all taxpayer losses from the bailout of Wall Street.

    The tax on banks, insurance companies and brokerages with more than $50 billion in assets would start after June 30 and seek to collect $90 billion over 10 years, according to a senior administration official who briefed reporters late Wednesday.

    But the levy but would remain in force longer if all losses to the bailout fund, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, are not recovered after a decade.

Not sure what safeguards exist to insure that the fee is paid by the banks and not the rest of us. But, this is a political move, too. There's great anger in the country towards Wall Street and the big banks. It's easy to understand why.

For example, yesterday, a number of top bankers testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC). ABC's Jon Karl reports that while the bankers appeared contrite during the hearing, that wasn't the case after they left the hearing room:

    When they came before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the leaders of the nation's top banks were contrite about their role in the financial meltdown. But when ABC News caught up with them after the hearing, they expressed no regret whatsoever for the big bonuses now going to bank executives.