An awful decision (Times-Herald Record)

[struggle4progress]

In one of the worst rulings of the modern era, the U.S. Supreme Court last week gave U.S. corporations free rein to spend as much money as they want to elect whom they want and to bully elected officials into voting how they want them to vote with the threat of defeating them in an avalanche of lobbyist dollars.

... Corporations have billions of dollars to spend to influence elected officials to do their bidding, in the interest of making more money for the corporation. Individuals have their voices, their modest comparative wealth and sense of community right or wrong to make their own case to elected officials. It's not the same thing ...

Special interests do not need special favors from Congress or the courts. It is a recipe for corruption. Congress — and individual states — need to act quickly to redo campaign finance laws to minimize the damage of this ruling until it can be overturned.

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100124/OPINION/1240333/-1/SITEMAP

[Hekate]

1. KnR

[Vidar]

2. K&R.

[FrenchieCat]

3. What are Teabaggers gonna do?

Who are they gonna support if they want their Money back? :shrug:

Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Ruling
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html


Obama in a speech last month pointed out.....

"Just last week, Republican leaders in the House summoned more than 100 key lobbyists for the financial industry to a “pep rally,” and urged them to redouble their efforts to block meaningful financial reform. Not that they needed the encouragement. These industry lobbyists have already spent more than $300 million on lobbying the debate this year.

The special interests and their agents in Congress claim that reforms like the Consumer Financial Protection Agency will stifle consumer choice and that updated rules and oversight will frustrate innovation in the financial markets. But Americans don’t choose to be victimized by mysterious fees, changing terms, and pages and pages of fine print. And while innovation should be encouraged, risky schemes that threaten our entire economy should not.”
source



House Republicans Come Out Against Administration’s Bank Fee:

JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon also chimed in, saying that the fee is meant to “punish people,” which is a “bad idea.”

And now House Republicans have gone to bat for the big banks, claiming that implementing a bank fee would be “lunacy”:

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ): “has said any tax or fee could hinder the economic recovery and further limit the industry’s ability to extend more loans.”

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX): “How you are going to tax banks and expect them to lend more is frankly lunacy.”

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL): “The tax will only drain capital from the financial system at a time when it’s needed to create jobs and fuel economic growth.”

Rep. David Camp (R-MI): “while he and other Republicans find bonuses being paid by banks that got bailouts ‘irresponsible’ and ‘outrageous,’ they are concerned that taxing banks will hurt lending, and thus job creation.

On a more important note, all of the whining is futile, as the TARP law requires the administration to create a fee in order to recoup any of the program’s losses. The law states that some sort of revenue-raising mechanism needs to be in place by 2013, but the administration said that “the President has no intention of waiting that long.”
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/01/14/gop-bank-lunac/