Rumors Swirl: Obama To Kneecap The Koch Brothers With Citizens United Executive Order

[herding cats]

It is being reported that one of President Obama’s surprises at the State Of The Union will be an announcement of an executive order that will take on the Koch Brothers and Citizens United.

Eleanor Clift of The Daily Beast reported:

Wednesday is the fifth anniversary of Citizens United, and reformers have been told that the president may announce executive action in his SOTU speech that would require businesses contracting with the government to disclose political contributions after contracts have been awarded. This would ensure that the contracting process is blind, but also give the public (and the media) the information needed to connect the dots to look for backroom deals or conflicts of interest.

Guess who happens to have multi-million dollar contracts with the Department of Defense? The federal government hating Koch Brothers have tens of millions of dollars in defense contracts with the federal government. Rush Limbaugh also has a federal government contract that allows his showto be broadcast on the American Forces Network.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/20/rumors-swirl-obama-kneecap-koch-brothers-citizens-united-executive-order.html

I know it's just a rumor still at this point, but if it's true it would be amazing.

[stevenleser]

1. That would be a master stroke. nt

[herding cats]

6. The idea of such an EO has been discussed off and on for a few years now.

Considering the timing, I'm thinking this is something which could very well be true.

[JimDandy]

46. What is to stop any company that submits a bid

from making sure that political donations are funneled through a subsidiary instead of the arm that bids?

[CTyankee]

59. I'll bet they thought of that. Betcha that'll be the part that is exposed, too...

[JimDandy]

60. I'm hoping so.

And that it is airtight so they can't find a way to weasel out.

[CTyankee]

61. How can it not be? It's their favorite gambit, so to speak.

It seems to me to be the point of all this...

[aggiesal]

65. What's stopping them from ...

giving their donations to one of the SuperPAC's that don't have to disclose their donors?

This will only drive the anonymous donors deeper, but still have the ability to donate as much
as they like.

[herding cats]

68. This is exactly what would be covered if an EO were to be issued.

The original draft, which was being discussed a few years back, covered contributions made to third party entities which would then use them for campaigns.

[JimDandy]

91. Obama said nothing about this in his speech, unfortunately. n/t

[BeanMusical]

108. I would have been extremely surprised if he had.

[grahamhgreen]

117. Couldn't this be overridden by the TPP?

[stevenleser]

118. No. nt

[grahamhgreen]

119. They could sue saying the rule impacts their profits.

[stevenleser]

120. No, they can't. nt

[grahamhgreen]

125. Of course they can. They got the money. The courts are in their favour if we sign the TPP.

[HappyMe]

2. Wow!

That would be excellent.

[leftynyc]

3. Agree this would be amazing, if true

(koch)heads will be exploding all over the place.

[olddots]

4. I won't bet on it

The Koch suckers are holding the cards .

[Nye Bevan]

5. I support Citizens United for free speech reasons, but I would have no problem with this.

Corporations are always free not to contract with the government.

[upaloopa]

7. Money is not speech and corporations

are not people even of some right wing judges say so.
So you see you can't support citizens united on free speech grounds you can just join in the misinformation campaign .

[Nye Bevan]

10. If the decision had gone the other way, Congress would be able to ban books

that mention election candidates. I think it should be unconstitutional to criminalize the publication of a book, whatever it says about election candidates.

The ACLU strongly supports the Citizens United decision for a reason.

[Lochloosa]

13. "Strongly Supports" is a stretch IMO

We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.

At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.

In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

[Nye Bevan]

14. Not only "supports", they filed an amicus brief with the court in the case.

And I have absolutely no problem with enhanced disclosure and limits on campaign contributions.

[Maineman]

21. Ban books? Nonsense. Books are books, and money is money.

[Nye Bevan]

23. The government actually argued to the court that it should be possible to ban books.

According to Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who argued the case, the government could theoretically regulate other forms of pre-election corporate speech as well, including books and the Internet. "That's pretty incredible," said Justice Samuel Alito. "You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" Yes, Mr. Stewart said, if a corporation or union were paying for it. It would be possible to "prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds."

http://citizensunited.org/press-releases.aspx?article=430#sthash.u2shz7wC.dpuf

[Orsino]

103. Books are speech. Money is not.

Removing limits on how much speech the rich can buy is a terrible idea antithetical to democracy. Please reevaluate your support for such a thing.

[Act_of_Reparation]

114. Money, as donations, is association

And association is protected by the First Amendment.

The thing to remember, however, is that rights aren't unlimited; you can't, by exercising your rights, deny the rights of another citizen. So, whether money is or is not speech isn't really the issue, as speech is already limited in a number of other circumstances.

[Orsino]

115. Money isn't speech.

It's letting someone else speak for you, or changing someone else's speech.

It is not the speech itself...and removing limts on those practices is bad news for democracy.

[Act_of_Reparation]

121. I'll repeat: it is association

"Association" includes people pooling their resources to advance a particular cause collectively. This qualifies as speech and is protected by the First Amendment.

Do you not think you should have the right to donate to non-profit organizations as you see fit?

[PosterChild]

82. And movies are movies...

... Cirizens United is actually a right wing film production company. The2 produced a political documentary and released it, to paying audiences in theaters before the election. This is what they were halled into court for. That just isn't that far from publishing a book right before an election.

[upaloopa]

22. What I said

Money isn't speech and corporations are not people

[AzDar]

90. Well-said.

DO IT, MR. PRESIDENT!!!

[MFrohike]

72. Yeesh

The ACLU's argument in favor of money as speech is dishonest and invalid on its face.

The book banning argument is also dishonest. McCain-Feingold limited the ability of non-human entities to advertise for a short period prior to a presidential primary or general election. It was not a ban, as the word ban is commonly used. There's a difference between an honest-to-God book ban and not allowing non-human entities, no prohibitions on actual humans you'll notice, from advertising for 30-60 days.

[Nye Bevan]

73. Again, the government argued before the justices that it had the power to ban books.

According to Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who argued the case, the government could theoretically regulate other forms of pre-election corporate speech as well, including books and the Internet. "That's pretty incredible," said Justice Samuel Alito. "You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" Yes, Mr. Stewart said, if a corporation or union were paying for it. It would be possible to "prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds."

http://citizensunited.org/press-releases.aspx?article=430#sthash.u2shz7wC.dpuf

So here "ban" (as defined by the attorney acting for the government) meant "prohibit the publication of".

[MFrohike]

74. Oh?

Did the Deputy Solicitor General argue that he could ban those forms of communication in excess of the statutory period? If not, then my point stands. It's a temporary bar on advertising for NON-HUMAN entities. There is no bar, nor could there be such a bar, on an actual human. You are arguing for the 1st amendment rights of legal fictions.

[Nye Bevan]

77. The exact phrase he used was "prohibit the publication of the book" (nt)

[MFrohike]

80. Within the statutory period

McCain-Feingold allowed for a bar 30 days prior to a presidential primary and 60 days prior to a general election. I highly doubt the government argued that grant of authority was unlimited.

[Orsino]

104. Supporting Citizens United to prevent the banning of books is a silly non sequitur. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

105. I think a big reason why the ACLU supports the decision so strongly

Last edited Wed Jan 21, 2015, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

is that they believe that banning books should be unconstitutional.

[we can do it]

20. I wish I could rec this.

[Nye Bevan]

36. I stand with the ACLU on this issue (nt)

[Duval]

43. Me, too. n/t

[skepticscott]

38. Citizens United did not say that "money is speech"

or that "corporations are people". The misinformation campaign is by people who keep insinuating that it did.

[upaloopa]

48. Where do you suppose those ideas came from?

Maybe from the judges yea maybe the judges
Oh no we just pulled them out of our asses after the decision was handed down and we just repeated what Mittens said.

[skepticscott]

70. They came from a misunderstanding or a deliberate twisting

of what the decision actually said, by people who either didn't understand it or needed it to fit their agenda no matter what, or both.

[upaloopa]

89. I think that is pure bull shit

On edit: I wanted to add this. The outcomes of that decision point to the truth in what I've said and the rejection of what you say.
It is easy to use academic words and views that don't begin to speak to the reality of the suffering in people's lives that decision has brought and will bring in the future.
Come down from your cloud and open your eyes.

[Flatulo]

100. Actually, it was pretty much pulled out of someone's ass.

The court ruled that since individuals have protections of speech, if individuals choose to organize into groups, the group doesn't lose its protections.

[Takket]

9. Citizens United squelches free speech. It makes it impossible for individual's voices to be heard

[Nye Bevan]

11. On the contrary, you can band together with other like-minded individuals,

pool your resources, and make your collective voice heard. And Citizens United protects the free speech rights of such an organization, even though it is not a "natural person".

[LawDeeDah]

17. How the hell are people who don't have time for their kids

because they are working 2 or 3 poor wage jobs, or money to pay for basic needs supposed to 'band together' and beat the Kochs.
How do these people get to lobby and buy half of congress? are you KIDDING?

w . t . f . !

[Nye Bevan]

26. Much of Obama's support came from small contributions from individuals.

Do you think the Kochs preferred Obama to Romney?

[upaloopa]

29. Get real OK ?

[Enthusiast]

92. WTF, indeed.

[A Simple Game]

24. How do you make your "collective voice heard" if you are hiding in a corner?

If you want your voice heard you shout it out "I support this candidate with my own money."

Hiding in the shadows and refusing credit for a contribution could easily be called a bribe.

[Nye Bevan]

30. Joining a union would be one example (nt)

[neverforget]

49. because unions are so strong in the US today

and they're not under assault by corporations, Republicans or state governments led by Republicans.. But, yeah, joining a union if it were only that easy....

[Enthusiast]

93. +1 an entire shit load.

[upaloopa]

27. You can ban with other working class people

who have to spend every cent they own to survive.
I guess you are one of those academics who come here with that kind of irrelevant bull shit!

[Nye Bevan]

32. I support the right of unions to speak for their members.

Citizens United protected that right, even for political speech during an election campaign.

[upaloopa]

47. What percent of people are in unions?

[Nye Bevan]

50. 11.3%, or 14.5 million people

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

[Enthusiast]

94. Unions have that right already. And it isn't working out well for my side.

Union voices can't hope to match the volume of the corporations. We are witnessing the results of Citizens United right now. It has destroyed the democracy.

[neverforget]

86. Funny how corporations use their money, sorry "free speech", to buy politicians while us little guys

can't even come close to the amount of money, I mean "free speech", to have our voices heard. Oh well. It's only money, er free speech.

[Enthusiast]

95. +1

[edhopper]

25. So you agree

Corporations are people, yes?
And money is speech, yes?

[Nye Bevan]

28. Corporations are not "people", but do have constitutional rights.

Last edited Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

And you do certainly need money to make your voice heard. Paying dues to a union which represents the opinions of its members would be one example of this. And Citizens United protects the union's free speech right to publicly oppose or support any candidate it chooses in an election.

[edhopper]

33. Paying dues to a union

isn't a right.

And non-human entities don't have civil rights. What next, the right of corporations to vote?

Needing money to be heard is the problem and anathema to what free speech is.

[Nye Bevan]

35. It's one example of how people can have a collective voice.

And if "non-human entities don't have civil rights", the police can enter and search Planned Parenthood clinics whenever they feel like it, for no reason, without a warrant, and confiscate whatever they like. Isn't it better for Planned Parenthood to be constitutionally protected against unreasonable search and seizure, even though they are a "non-human entity"?

[whathehell]

67. Yes, and avoiding responsibility is the reason businesses incorporate in the first place

so, unlike REAL people, this gives them lots of "rights" with no responsibilities.

[edhopper]

69. True that

[PosterChild]

83. limited liability isn't avoidance..

...of responibility. It's the reasonable limitation of responsibility to the business entity doing the contracting. Everyone contracting with the buseness understands that and is willing to take the risk.

In return, the public gets an efficient and transparent financial market for capital formation and risk sharing as well as publically available, standardized, and audited financial reporting. The modern corporation is a boon to society and the world's economic development would be severely stunted without it.

[whathehell]

88. Limited liability should mean limited rights..

The modern corporation is both a boon and a danger. While it provides efficient allocation of financial resources, its competitive ruthlessness will compel the corporation to exploit any tools provided to it to limit financial risks and expand financial opportunities. Corporations should not be provided a louder voice than natural persons due to their greater financial capabilities.

Thus there is a danger that the government will be manipulated into sending us back into a world of robber barons.

[Enthusiast]

97. +1 You nailed it.

[whathehell]

101. Thanks. n/t

[PosterChild]

128. I generally agree (nt)

[Enthusiast]

96. +1

[skepticscott]

41. No, and if Citizens United had said either of those things

your question might be relevant. But it didn't.

[edhopper]

52. I think that is debatable

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/how-supreme-court-turned-corporations-people-200-year-saga

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution

[Nye Bevan]

57. Wikipedia articulates the decision accurately:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)[dead link], is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

[WilliamPitt]

55. Jesus.

[Nye Bevan]

56. Was that also your reaction to the ACLU filing an amicus brief in the case?

Do you generally agree with the ACLU's position on other issues?

[harun]

107. Are you constitutionally guaranteed protection to pay a police officer not to give

you a speeding ticket? It's just speech right?

[Nye Bevan]

109. No, bribing a law enforcement officer is very different from making a movie or publishing a book

about a candidate in an election. The former is not protected free speech but I (and the ACLU) believe that the latter should be.

[harun]

111. A bribe is what the law says it is.

I have no problem with contributions to and spending of political organizations being regulated.

An individual can fund and make movies with their whole fortune about whatever they want.

I'm giving my opinion about what should be you're just stating the current law which happens to be what you want it to be.

[Nye Bevan]

112. Should a publisher be allowed to publish whatever book they want? (nt)

[harun]

122. Publisher yes, PAC no. A PAC being what is defined by the Federal Elections Campaign Act as a PAC.

[Nye Bevan]

123. How would you codify in the Constitution that a publisher has First Amendment rights,

but a PAC does not? Or would you strip both publishers and PACs of First Amendment protections and hope that Congress would allow publishers to publish books without restriction?

[harun]

124. As long as an individuals rights are not infringed upon I don't care if Congress screws them both.

Then let elections sort out the problems with Congressmen who would vote for such nonsense.

[Nye Bevan]

127. So you're OK with the constitution to allow Congress to ban publishers from publishing books,

and you trust that elections will ensure that we would never have a Congress who would "vote for such nonsense".

I guess I am keener on the First Amendment than you are.

[harun]

129. PAC's, not publishers

[Ykcutnek]

8. BUT, BUT, BUT...

I thought he was just proposing things that have no chance of happening.

[LawDeeDah]

12. Be still my heart!

[Half-Century Man]

15. Good start.

If so, get every state we can to enact similar rules of disclosure.
This issue could find liberals aligned with Tea Party to reach common goals.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend (at least temporarily)

[Renew Deal]

16. I've had a Citizens United inspired sig line from an Obama SOTU from a few years ago.

[rurallib]

18. If I can't have the lottery, Lord, let me have this one

I promise to kneel on one knee and point to the sky like them football guys do if Obama does it.

[Enthusiast]

102. Hey! LOL!

+1! "like them football guys" [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[George II]

19. I don't think the Citizens United decision included a provision for anyone to hide their...

.....contributions, just that there would be no limits on them. Also, I don't think the Koch Brothers have been hiding them, either. So, I doubt that this Executive Order, if it is as presented above, really won't change much.

[tridim]

31. Always give the Koch Brothers the benefit of the doubt.

Because they're such fine, upstanding folks?

Is this a joke?

[Enthusiast]

98. +1

[herding cats]

40. It's actually due to a loophole which is being exploited to that effect after the CU ruling.

At least to my understanding of the issue that's how it's being done.

This article explains it.

That means that those nonprofit groups, which are not required to disclose their donors, can now use corporate contributions to buy political commercials, and the corporations can potentially operate behind the anonymity of their donations.“Clearly, that’s where the action’s going to be,” said Kenneth A. Gross, a Washington lawyer who advises corporations on political law.

While last month’s decision allows corporations to spend without limit on advertising for or against candidates, if they do so directly, they will have to report their expenditures and identify their donors. Mr. Gross said corporations are often loath to have their names attached to such advertisements. The nonprofit groups, with their legal ability to withhold donors’ names, offer an attractive alternative, he said.

Democratic Congressional leaders called the loophole dangerous, and they have proposed legislation that would require nonprofit groups to identify publicly the sources of financing for their political advertisements.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/us/28donate.html?pagewanted=all

Which is where an EO such as this would be helpful in transparency of election finance.

[Roland99]

34. WAIT! "to disclose political contributions after contracts have been awarded"

*AFTER*

That's kind of pointless, isn't it?

[herding cats]

42. It's the only legal way this can be done after the SC ruling.

As to it being pointless, not really, it shows the money trail and the power the donations wielded. It shines a spotlight on just what exactly is being bought and paid for by whom in the US.

[Roland99]

78. Closing the barn door after the animals have left....

[djean111]

37. Like the Koch brothers care any more if we peasants know what they are up to. Yawn.

Not going to change a single vote, IMO.
I would be impressed if Obama said that, after reflection, the TTP and TTIP are really bad deals and so he will scuttle them, plus he will fulfill that rhetoric wherein he said he would re-address NAFTA. Um, re-address it to address the job losses, not make it even more corporate friendly.
What are the chances?

[Duval]

39. Man, let us pray!

This would be wonderful for us, and perhaps a beginning of getting rid of Citizens' United for good. And the flipping (I'm being nice) Koch brothers will not longer be able to hide their contributions.

[vkkv]

44. That's a start...

but not enough.

[Scuba]

45. Whoopie. We can already connect the dots, but the media belongs to the crooks, so no one knows.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

51. I won't believe it until I see those names in print.

That sword cuts both ways, it's not just the right wing that gets awarded contracts.

[kelliekat44]

53. Worst of all is Rush Limbaugh having a government contract to spew his vile lies and misinformation

and disrespect for the President to the uniform service men and women.

[Enthusiast]

99. +1 an entire shit load.

[JDPriestly]

54. This comes rightt out of Teddy Roosevelt's book, and right when we need it.

This is a major stroke against corruption.

Thank you, thank you, thank you President Obama.

This is the best thing Obama has done as president. And that is saying a lot.

I just can't recommend this post and this great news enough.

[vlyons]

58. well I hardly call that "knee-capping"

Knee capping would be making it illegal for corporations to make any political contributions at all. But I guess this, if it's true, is better than nothing -- just barely.

[grasswire]

62. Halliburton, Bushco, Carlyle Group!

Rand Corporation, Raytheon...

The Intel community and the military contractors too?

[kairos12]

63. Corporations are my kind of friends, my friend.

What Rmoney really meant.

[kpete]

64. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

&

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Enrique]

66. Alito won't like this

[blkmusclmachine]

71. When pigs fly...

[MFrohike]

75. Kneecapping? Hardly

An affected party could just and rely on the Citizens United precedent. I appreciate the sentiment, but it's an empty gesture.

[Cha]

76. I thought at first this may be an Onion type thing..

Thank you for posting, herding cats! We'll shall see





http://theobamadiary.com/2015/01/20/chat-away-494/

[madville]

79. Many Congressional Democrats will oppose such a thing

There are billions of dollars in contracts going to friends and families of many Congressional Democrats as well. I'm sure a few would be very unhappy, some of the prominent ones should retire anyway, I say open the books.

[valerief]

81. Or else what? If you guessed or else nothing, you win, cuz that's how

politics rolls.

[George II]

84. Watched the entire speech, did I sleep through this part?

[herding cats]

85. Nope, I watched it, too.

It was just rumor I'm guessing.

[LynneSin]

87. I say do it.

What's the worst the GOP could do? Impeach him? They don' have enough votes in the Senate to remove him from office.

I say sign it!

[world wide wally]

110. Terrible Supreme Court? Or the worst Supreme Court in history?

[Ferd Berfel]

113. THat's great. Hope it's true - NOW WHAT ABOUT TPP?

Will Citizens United matter anymore if the TPP goes through?

Just askin


Troubled TTP Isn’t the Only ‘Trade’ Takeover Busting Our Sovereignty

Even as controversial ‘trade’ deal, TTIP, sputters, other deals to give corporations as much power as countries are being negotiated even more secretively.

[DesertDiamond]

116. The only problem I see with this is that it would happen AFTER the contract has been awarded...

The horse is already out of the barn - how you gonna catch it?

[Anansi1171]

126. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!