What President Obama Can Do About Campaign Finance Reform Without Congressional Approval

[red dog 1]

Source:
TalkingPointsMemo.com
July 8, 2015

A FEDERAL COURT JUST THREATENED CITIZENS UNITED
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled 11-0 that a ban of federal campaign contributions by individuals who contract with the government is constitutional.
After a wave of controversial decisions by the Supreme Court that have unleashed a flood of big money into politics, this appeals court decision sends a clear message: Sometimes more money in politics can be a very bad thing.
Americans agree.
According to a poll from the New York Times, some 85 percent of the American people believe that the way political campaigns are funded needs either "fundamental changes" (39 percent) or "a complete rebuild." (46 percent)
Link to complete article:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026951789


Contained in the above referenced article from TalkingPointsMemo,
(July 8, 2015, by David Schultz)
is the following:

"So can anything be done?
Actually yes....All is not lost..And yesterday's court decision is a step in the right direction.
America need not wait for Congress or the Supreme Court to come around.
The President and various federal agencies have the power to make several small but important reforms.
Here are four:
1) The President could issue an executive order to require federal contractors to disclose all political contributions they make and to bar contractors from bidding on federal contracts for two years if they spend too much to influence a federal race or a member of Congress.
Yesterday's ruling upholds a ban on "pay to play" contributions to prevent conflicts of interest or undue influence.....A new order could be built on that ruling.
2) The Securities and Exchange Commission could make a rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose all expenditures of money for political purposes and to obtain shareholder assent to use money for these purposes.
3) To reduce candidates' need for costly commercials, the Federal Communications Commission could require broadcasters to provide reasonable free air time to all House, Senate and Presidential candidates....The public owns the airwaves, so there is nothing to stop the FCC from doing this.
4) The IRS could require that non-profits whose major purpose is political advocacy register with the Federal Elections Commission and disclose their donors and expenditures."

[Gregorian]

1. I have to say I'm outraged to see number 3. Why has that not been implemented already

You mean we could have made fox irrelevant all lthis time??

I'm probably missing something.

[red dog 1]

4. It was Obama who decided to "scrap the Fairness Doctrime once and for all"

See my reply to Scuba (Reply # 3)

[Igel]

5. That's broadcast tv.

Not cable or satellite.

There used to be a "fairness doctrine"; it was silly, but a lot of people now with dementia or who don't remember it swear by it. It was silly, because the "opposing view" broadcast was either that of somebody who came forward and asked for it or was somebody that was tracked down. Loony or fluff, at least in Baltimore.

I suspect it would require rewriting part of the contracts. It would eat into revenue while requiring resources. Otherwise they could just say, "Here's your airtime. Provide your own transmitter."

Some of the others wouldn't make it by the courts. At least not for a few decades. Perhaps at some point they won't limit free speech, but any speech you have to pay to make heard will be limited.

[murielm99]

6. Then I guess a lot of our Democratic legislators,

including Durbin, must have dementia. I think it might help to reinstate more responsible broadcasting. It might help curb Fox news.

[Scuba]

2. The difference between what he could do and what he will do should be telling.

[red dog 1]

3. You betcha!

For example:
Regarding Number 3 on the list of things Obama "could do"

"Everything you need to know about the Fairness Doctrine in one post"
(Washington Post, August 23, 2011)

"In 1987 (under Reagan) the FCC revoked the "Fairness Doctrine"
The decision has been credited with the explosion of conservative talk radio in the late '80s and early '90s.
While the FCC has not enforced the rule in nearly a quarter century,
IT REMAINS TECHNICALLY ON THE BOOKS.
As part of the Obama administration's broader efforts to "overhaul federal regulations"..
the FCC is finally scrapping the rule once and for all."
(I was unable to post a link to the WaPo article from Aug. 23, 2011, but you can Google it
"Everything you need to know about the Fairness Doctrine in one post&quot

Gee, I wonder why President Obama scrapped the Fairness Doctrine?

Since he was the one who "scrapped it once and for all",.couldn't he bring it back if he wanted to?
The obvious answer is..YES!