July 27th, 2010
07:56 AM ET
2 years ago

Obama blasts GOP opposition to campaign finance bill

President Obama on Monday criticized Republican opposition to a Senate campaign financial reform bill.
President Obama on Monday criticized Republican opposition to a Senate campaign financial reform bill.

Washington (CNN) - The Senate is expected to hold a procedural vote Tuesday on whether to end debate on a campaign finance bill, and Democrats fear a unified Republican filibuster will prevent the measure from moving to a final vote.

A key Republican, moderate Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, opposes the bill because it puts less restrictions on labor unions - a key Democratic constituency - than on corporations and other large donors, an aide to Collins said Monday.

[cnn-photo url=" http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/11/07/c1main.murray.handcuffs.pool.jpg"]

"The bill would provide a clear and unfair advantage to unions, while either shutting other organizations out of the election process or subjecting them to onerous reporting requirements that would not apply to unions," said the Collins aide, Kevin Kelley.

Collins is one of the few Republican senators considered a possible vote in support of Democratic-backed proposals. With Republicans holding enough Senate seats to block legislation, the inability of Democrats to attract support from Collins shows the precarious status of the bill.

Full story


Filed under: Campaign finance • President Obama • Senate
soundoff (32 Responses)
  1. Naqib

    Unions should not be treated any different than a corp...
    They are extremely powerful and just as corupt at buisness...

    Good for Goose... Good for Gander

    July 27, 2010 10:18 am at 10:18 am |
  2. snow

    HOLD THE LINE. Until unions are held to the same standard as everyone else, this bill should not pass. I doubt all demorats are supporting this bill but that is not discussed.

    July 27, 2010 10:21 am at 10:21 am |
  3. southerncousin

    Blasting people who oppose him or expose the corruption and sliminess of his administration is the only thing this corrupt idiot does well. It is a badge of honor and means you must be honest and ethical if you are blasted by Obozo.

    July 27, 2010 10:21 am at 10:21 am |
  4. Midwest

    If President Obama is getting "tough" on special interest influence in the White House, why didn't he ask White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel to give up his rent free DC house courtesy of BP Consultant Stanley Greenberg?

    The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee paid Stanley Greenberg's "consulting" firm $852,000 in 2006, $467,000 in 2007 and $611,000 in 2008 while Rham Emmanuel was living with Greenberg. Coincidentally Rahm Emmanuel was in charge of the DCCC during that time.

    Who is going to publicly acknowledge the petrolium interests $750-million war chest "donations" to Democratic campaigns in March 2007 through September 2008?

    July 27, 2010 10:30 am at 10:30 am |
  5. jeff jackson, alabama

    Where's the reaching across the
    party lines he promised ? Where's
    the change he promised ? Everytime
    a Republican opens their mouth Obama
    attacks them. Where's the bipartisanship
    he promised ?

    July 27, 2010 10:33 am at 10:33 am |
  6. Sniffit

    Of course, what Collins is failing to state (and I'm sure she's 100% aware of it) is that any bill that treats large corporations and unions in exactly the same manner gives a clear and hefty advantage to the corporations. If the goal is an even playing field for the two, then it's 100% necessary to treat them differently. It's a nice smokescreen on her part to flip it and claim it's unfair treatment but, well, you eat apples and oranges differently. Ignoring the substantive differences between corporations and unions that actually exist...in their formation, their organization, their manner of operation, their goals, their membership, who they represent, the public purposes they serve, the laws applicable to them and regulating their behavior, etc...is to ignore reality and thereby fail to craft a pragmatic solution. She argues for blanket treatment because she wishes the result it would achieve, not because she's concerned about fair play and equal treatment.

    July 27, 2010 10:36 am at 10:36 am |
  7. Dan

    Funny they didn't have any objections to the dangerous Supreme Court rulings that gave corporations and big donors WAY to much say in the political process of this country. At least unions represent the American Worker as opposed to the Corporate Fat Cat. But then Republicans only care about the latter, so this holds zero surprise for me.

    July 27, 2010 10:56 am at 10:56 am |
1 2