Obama Pauses From Fray to Raise Money for 2014

WASHINGTON — As he battles to advance legislative priorities on gun control and taxes, President Obama opened a multimillion-dollar fund-raising drive Wednesday in the hope of winning a friendlier Congress for his final two years in office.

With a two-day swing through the money corridors of Northern California, Mr. Obama began fulfilling a promise to Congressional Democrats to use the power and prestige of his office to fill their coffers for the 2014 election in a way he did not during his first term.

The president was the headliner at the first two of four big-dollar events Wednesday night and planned to appear at two more Thursday before returning to Washington. Although his approval rating is stuck below 50 percent in many polls, Mr. Obama remains a top draw for wealthy Democratic patrons, particularly in the supportive realms around San Francisco.

“Two thousand twelve was a referendum on the president, so the president had to campaign for himself,” Representative Steve Israel of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in an interview. “Two thousand fourteen is going to be a referendum on House Republican obstruction, and so the president is now helping House Democrats.”

The president returned to the campaign trail while making a high-profile effort to court Republican lawmakers. He has taken Republican senators to dinner, and is scheduled to have another dinner with Senate Republicans next week after releasing his long-delayed budget plan.

Such dual-track efforts are common for presidents of both parties, but this one could complicate Mr. Obama’s outreach on issues like deficit reduction and immigration.

“My hope is that we’re going to see more and more Republicans who say, you know what, I didn’t come here just to fight the president or demonize Nancy Pelosi, I came here to get some stuff done,” Mr. Obama said at one of the Wednesday night fundraisers, where he was flanked by Mrs. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader. “But, realistically, I could get a whole lot more done if Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the House.”

Mr. Obama’s choice of hosts likewise opened the president to criticism. His first reception Wednesday was at the San Francisco home of Thomas F. Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire, and his wife, Kat Taylor, where 100 guests each paid between $5,000 and the $32,400 legal maximum. After that, the president was headed to the San Francisco home of the billionaire philanthropists Ann and Gordon Getty, who had invited 75 people to write checks for $32,400.

On Thursday morning, the president is due in nearby Atherton for a brunch for 30 guests paying $32,400 apiece at the home of Mark W. Heising, founder of a private equity investment firm, and his wife, Liz Simons. Then Mr. Obama is due at the Atherton home of John D. Goldman, a Levi Strauss heir, and his wife, Marcia, for a reception for 250 donors paying between $1,000 and $20,000 each.

The Republican National Committee posted a video mocking Mr. Obama for calling on the wealthy to pay more in taxes and then hitting what it called “Billionaires’ Row” to collect big campaign checks.

“On the campaign trail, Obama’s favorite applause line was attacking the very people he’s now begging for campaign cash,” Reince Priebus, the party chairman, said in a statement. “Hypocrisy at its finest. Barack Obama has his priorities completely backward — prioritizing billionaires over the taxpayers who demand and deserve a budget.”

Republicans were not the only ones protesting Mr. Obama’s fund-raising trip. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups picketed outside the Getty home to press him to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, the latest of several such demonstrations.

“Americans are showing up by the thousands to tell the president in person: ‘You must be bold on climate. You must reject Keystone XL,’ ” said Michael Brune, executive directorof the Sierra Club.

Mr. Obama may get that message even more directly from Mr. Steyer, who retired last year from Farallon Capital Management. Mr. Steyer, an environmental advocate, is such an ardent foe of Keystone that he recently threatened to broadcast ads against a Senate candidate in Massachusetts unless the candidate renounced support for the pipeline.

The events Wednesday night were to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Mr. Obama promised to hold eight fund-raisers for the group this year, including two with its Senate counterpart. He appeared at only two fund-raisers for the committee in 2009 and one in 2011. The Thursday events will be for the Democratic National Committee.

View the original article here

Minority senators raise alarm on elections-linked bills

A trio of racially diverse state senators on Monday condemned elections-related bills that they say discriminate against minorities and called on the U.S. Department of Justice to monitor the legislation.

Of particular concern to the senators are Senate Bill 1003, which would limit who can return a voter's ballot, and SB 1261, which would drop people from the early voting list if they failed to mail in their ballots and instead voted at the polls. Both passed the Senate last week.

"It would truly throw up obstacles to the early-vote process," Senate Minority Leader Leah Landrum Taylor said of SB 1261. She is African-American.

She was joined by Sens. Jack Jackson Jr., a Navajo, and Steve Gallardo, who is Latino. All three are Democrats, and all three said the bills would have a "devastating" impact on minority voting.

Gallardo said the legislation is a great example of why Arizona still needs to be under the protection of the federal Voting Rights Act, which was passed to protect minority voting rights and just last week was the topic of a U.S. Supreme Court case.

"The potential effect of these bills is alarming, and the genesis of these bills is equally concerning," the senators wrote.

None of the groups that have worked to increase minority voting was invited to the meetings where the bill language was crafted, Gallardo said. Although the bills have the backing of the state's 15 county elections officials, Gallardo said, those officials need to look outside their offices and consider the effect on voters.

Sen. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, introduced the bills and made changes in response to concerns raised at public hearings last month. SB 1003 originally said only an immediate family member or roommate could drop a person's ballot at the polls, but she changed it to allow the voter to designate someone to do so, requiring signed statements from both the voter and the person delivering the ballot.

But the bill prevents any member of a political committee, political party or group or organization -- such as those that mobilized Latino voters last fall -- from delivering people's ballots. However, it exempts candidates and their spouses, who could continue to collect ballots and deliver them to elections officials.

Anyone violating the return procedures would be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Democratic Party officials said it's common for voters to drop off their ballots at party headquarters, because they are wary of the U.S. Postal Service. Last November, 600 to 700 voters did so, party spokesman Frank Camacho said.

The state Republican Party said it doesn't get such requests, but Maricopa County GOP Chairman A.J. LaFaro said it has happened on the county level. However, he said, party officials support SB 1003 and would adjust.

The senators also complained about another bill that would have required anyone who received an early ballot to return it a week before election day. That measure, SB 1274, was held in the Senate Elections Committee and has not advanced. The other two bills are awaiting action in the House.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Obama, Dems raise $43.6M in April; short of March haul

WASHINGTON - President Obama and the Democratic Party raised a combined $43.6 million last month for his re-election, a drop from his March haul and another sign that he is likely to fall well short of the $1 billion mark in his re-election effort.

By Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP

President Obama speaks at a fundraiser hosted by singer Ricky Martin and the LGBT Leadership Council in New York on Monday.

By Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP

President Obama speaks at a fundraiser hosted by singer Ricky Martin and the LGBT Leadership Council in New York on Monday.

Obama and his Democratic fund-raising arms would have to take in nearly $60 million a month between now and Election Day just to match the $745 million he raised as a candidate in 2008. The $53 million he raised in March for himself and the party was his best fund-raising month of the year.

"One of the most important things we can do is get arms around the fact that this election is going to be close, given the historic challenges the nation faced when the president first came into office," Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a video to supporters Wednesday. He said more than $57 million in negative ads targeting Obama have already aired and more are on the way.

The campaign announcement came as Crossroads GPS, a non-profit group linked to Republican strategist Karl Rove, announced it would spend $25 million on advertising slamming Obama on the economy and federal deficit. Crossroads GPS and its super PAC, American Crossroads, have pledged to spend $300 million to oppose Obama and congressional Democrats.

Messina said 169,500 donors gave to Obama for the first time in April, putting the campaign within reach of nearly 2 million contributors. He said the money paid for building the campaign infrastructure and boosting get-out-the-vote efforts in key battleground states, including opening 42 new field offices in April and registering 15,000 new voters in North Carolina. In 2008, Obama won the state by a mere 14,000 votes.

In a conference call Wednesday, deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said the campaign feels "pretty good" about its fund-raising and the ground operation that "will decide the election."

Obama's April figures don't include a new round of presidential fundraisers in recent weeks that have taken the president to New York City and Los Angeles. Obama raised an estimated $15 million at a single event last week at actor George Clooney's home.

Republican presumptive nominee Mitt Romney had collected just $12.6 million in March but has yet to release his April fund-raising totals. In recent weeks, Romney has begun collecting campaign money with the Republican National Committee and is attending a round of fundraisers in Florida this week. His supporters say Romney and the RNC aim to collect a combined $800 million.

On Wednesday, RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski sent out an email slamming Obama as "fundraiser in chief."

Contributing: Aamer Madhani

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Democrats Use Limbaugh Controversy to Raise Money - NewsMax.com

Democrats are using Rush Limbaugh’s controversial criticism of a law student's contraceptive advocacy to raise money and are calling on more sponsors to drop his talk show. In a rebuttal, he says he's actually adding sponsors.

Limbaugh has apologized for calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” for testifying before Congress in support of health insurance coverage of birth control. But Fluke has called the apology meaningless, and Democrats are doing their best to keep the story alive.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, from Limbaugh’s home state of Missouri, featured Limbaugh’s words in a fundraising appeal. It paid off, netting her re-election campaign $10,000 in just one day.

"It's been one of our top fundraising emails for Claire," McCaskill campaign manager Adrianne Marsh told The Associated Press.

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have also invoked Limbaugh’s name in fundraising appeals. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, chaired by Washington Sen. Patty Murray, called for donations to help fight Limbaugh.

“Personal attacks on a student — and all women — simply can’t be ignored,” the committee’s appeal said. “Stand with us, and denounce Rush Limbaugh’s vile attacks.”

Dozens of advertisers and some radio stations have dropped Limbaugh’s show, and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said he would “love” to see the Armed Forces Network ditch it as well.

Meanwhile, Limbaugh scoffs at the idea that such actions have hurt his show.

“Everything is fine on the business side,” he said on his program on Wednesday. “Everything’s cool. There is not a thing to worry about.”

Amid reports that at least 28 sponsors have left the show, Limbaugh said that is “out of 18,000. That’s like losing a couple of french fries in the container when it’s delivered to you in the drive-through. You don’t even notice it.”

Limbaugh also said he's adding more advertisers. “Whatever you are seeing on television about this program and sponsors and advertisers is just incorrect," he said.

Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod tried to tie the flap to the presidential campaign, telling reporters Wednesday that GOP front-runner Mitt Romney’s failure to denounce Limbaugh shows a lack of backbone.

"How can he stand up to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad?" Axelrod continued, "How are you going to stand up to the challenges of the presidency? These are tests. Presidential campaigns are tests... The Limbaugh thing was a test of leadership, and you have them all the time, and Mitt Romney has failed those tests in the campaign."

Even McCaskill’s mother has joined the fray. An email sent out in 83-year-old Betty Anne McCaskill’s name carried the subject line, “Who are you calling a slut or a babe?”

In it, the senator’s mom accused Limbaugh of waging “a war on women.”

“Rush Limbaugh and his out-of-control nasty mouth is part of the problem,” she said. “I thought after 40 years of progress this wouldn’t be an issue any more. Unfortunately, it seems that I’ve thought too highly of Republican Party leaders.”

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

View the original article here

Obama, DNC raise $68M in final 3 months of 2011 (AP)

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama hauled in more than $68 million for his campaign and the Democratic Party during the final three months of 2011, a show of force that allows him to compete — for now at least — in the new reality of freewheeling outside political groups.

The latest infusion of money, announced Thursday, adds up to more than $220 million in 2011 for the president's re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee, putting Obama far ahead of other Republican presidential candidates. In most years, it might amount to a substantial fundraising advantage, but a flurry of super PACs and big-dollar independent groups have changed the rules of campaign money.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a video to supporters that they collected more than $42 million for the quarter, with the DNC bringing in more than $24 million, along with $1 million for a joint fund to help state parties in key states. That beat an internal goal of $60 million combined for the quarter.

It came a day after the campaign of Republican front-runner Mitt Romney said it had raised $56 million for the primary through Dec. 31, including $24 million during the final three months of 2011.

Yet, even with the current money advantage over Romney and the rest of the GOP field, Democrats are hoping to remain competitive with Republicans because of the dominance of outside groups.

GOP-supportive super PACs have raised tens of millions of dollars this primary season, notably the Romney-leaning Restore Our Future and American Crossroads, which has said it plans to raise more than $200 million this election cycle. American Crossroads has ties to Karl Rove, a former political adviser to President George W. Bush,

Later this month, the outside groups are expected to disclose how much they have collected during the past six months, figures that will shed more light on their influence.

"We face some daunting odds ... to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars," said Vice President Joe Biden, in a primary night address to New Hampshire Democrats. "These guys have these super PACs now on the Republican side that will spend hundreds of millions of dollars in attack ads. We're not going to have those hundreds of millions of dollars in super PACs."

Republicans counter that Obama is more concerned with his re-election campaign than with his job of running the country, pointing to his fundraising edge on the GOP field. Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said "the White House may try to pretend the president isn't focused on his re-election, but Americans know he's more interested in campaigning to save his own job than creating jobs for our country's unemployed."

The president's campaign has watched with concern as the outside groups have escalated a race for political money and roiled the Republican primary season, most notably the campaign of Newt Gingrich.

The former House speaker built a lead in Iowa only to watch it erode under a $3 million tidal wave of negative ads launched by the outside group supporting Romney, who eventually won a razor-thin victory in the leadoff caucuses. Gingrich finished fourth.

Restore Our Future has reserved $2.3 million in air time in South Carolina ahead of the states' primaries, while a pro-Gingrich group, Winning Our Future, has said it plans to spend $3.4 million on ads attacking Romney for jobs lost while he served as a top executive at private equity firm Bain Capital. Winning Our Future's effort was bankrolled by casino owner Sheldon Adelson, who gave $5 million to the pro-Gingrich super PAC. Outside groups backing Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum have also exerted influence.

Crossroads, for its part, says it is largely holding off ads until the general election, to counterbalance the anticipated flood of money from donors to Obama and the DNC.

Democratic-leaning groups like Priorities USA Action, founded by former Obama advisers, have not spent nearly the same amount as their GOP counterparts. Through late July, Priorities USA Action and sister organization Priorities USA had raised more than $5 million and has spent roughly $320,000 on ads and media-production costs opposing Romney, federal filings show.

David Axelrod, the Obama campaign's senior strategist, said the emergence of the super PACs represented a "concerning dynamic" for Democrats, likening it to facing "the secret air force and have them carpet bomb relentlessly."

"The prospect of hundreds of millions of dollars of negative ads raining down on us is not a prospect that I relish," Axelrod said in a conference call with reporters last week. But he said Obama was "thoroughly known to the American people," making him less susceptible to negative attacks.

With the prospect of a deluge of money opposing the president, Obama's campaign has tried to bat away suggestions that it will raise more than $1 billion, a substantial boost from the $750 million it raised in 2008. Messina said in the video that the lofty figures have created "a challenge that keeps coming up. Too many Obama supporters think we don't need their money or they don't need to give now."

"The billion-dollar number is completely untrue," Messina said.

Obama's campaign has emphasized a large number of donors and small donations generated from online giving. Messina said the campaign and DNC had generated 1.3 million donors, with 583,000 people giving during the most recent quarter. More than 98 percent were for donations of $250 or less and the average donation was $55, he said.

The money will help build Obama's organization, pay for a massive advertising campaign and let his advisers prepare for the upcoming campaign, a point the president emphasized at a large Chicago fundraiser on Wednesday night.

"If you're willing to work even harder in this election than you did in that last election, I promise you change will come," Obama said. "If you stick with me, we're going to finish what we started in 2008."

___

Associated Press writer Jack Gillum contributed to this report.

___

Follow Ken Thomas on Twitter at http://twitter.com/AP_Ken_Thomas

View the original article here

Obama, party allies raise $68 million for re-election (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's re-election campaign and its Democratic allies raised more than $68 million in the last three months of 2011, dwarfing Republican rivals as the White House race approaches.

In a video message sent to supporters on Thursday, Obama's 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina announced the haul, which brings the shared fundraising by Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee at over $200 million for 2011.

With most of that money said to be coming in small-dollar sums from thousands of Americans, the fundraising gives Obama, a Democrat, a nice cushion as he campaigns for re-election against Republicans sparring to see who will be their nominee in November's election.

Although the money given to the DNC is effectively Obama's for grabs, his own campaign -- which faces lower contribution limits -- received $42 million during the last three months of 2011.

Still, that far outstrips the amounts donated to the Republican campaigns, which do not yet receive financial backing from the Republican National Committee.

Front-runner Mitt Romney's campaign said on Wednesday it had raised $24 million in the fourth quarter. Ron Paul raised $13 million and Newt Gingrich raised $9 million.

The Obama team is shooting to top the roughly $750 million it raised when he was elected president in 2008.

Much of Obama's success in 2008 was credited to his grassroots support illustrated by small donations, which Messina said continue to flow. Similar to the previous quarterly report, 98 percent of the donations to Obama's campaign were made up of $250 or less, he said.

In the video, Messina again rejected the expectation that the campaign would raise $1 billion. That false expectation, he said, was giving donors the misimpression Obama did not need their financial support.

"Too many Obama supporters think we don't need their money, or they don't need to give now," he said in the video.

"We won in 2008 because every single supporter and volunteer viewed their role in this campaign as absolutely essential to us winning. But now we're in danger of letting that very belief slip through our fingers this time."

One major campaign donor highlighted the financial challenge Obama faces from "Super PACs," the groups that technically cannot directly communicate with campaigns but can accept unlimited donations in support of a candidate.

"The race is going to be expensive. The fact is that there are these unlimited buckets of (Republican) PAC money," he said.

"The Obama campaign is going to need money from here for the duration. And once (the Republicans) have a nominee, that's when it starts getting expensive."

Some 1.3 million Americans gave to Obama's campaign last year, including 583,000 donors in the fourth quarter alone. Of those, almost a third were first-time donors, Messina said.

The campaign beat its goal of raising $60 million in the fourth quarter, although the amount brought in was just under $70 million raised in the third quarter. Through the end of September, the campaign and the DNC had raised roughly $155 million.

Messina's email to supporters asked them to chip in $25 now; often Obama fundraising appeals start with a much lower $3 donation request.

The campaigns have until Jan 31 to release their full fourth quarter reports.

(additional reporting by Eric Johnson in Chicago and Patricia Zengerle in Washington; Editing by Philip Barbara)

View the original article here

Fake Democrats raise few funds for recall primary campaigns - Wausau Daily Herald

MADISON -- Fake Democratic candidates running in recall elections in order to give Republican incumbents more time to campaign have raised almost no money for the effort, reports filed with the state showed Wednesday.

The candidates, prompted by the state Republican Party, ran simply to force a primary and thereby delay the general election by a month in hopes of giving GOP incumbents more time to campaign.

Six Democratic primary elections are scheduled for Tuesday, with the winners facing the targeted Republican incumbents Aug. 9.

Five of the six fake Democrats whose reports were available Wednesday raised just $4,200 -- with nearly all the money coming from the Republican Party to help pay for copies and postage related to their filing as candidates.

A report for the sixth fake Democrat, James Smith of La Crosse, was not posted on the Government Accountability Board website by midday Wednesday.

While the protest candidates lie low, the legitimate Republicans and Democrats are raising tons of cash.

The six Democratic candidates combined have raised more than $1.5 million and had nearly $1 million in cash on hand. The Republican incumbents collectively raised about $2.4 million and had about $893,000 in cash on hand.

Four of the Republican incumbents raised more than their Democratic challengers, but two had less cash on hand entering the final weeks of the campaign.

The reports submitted Tuesday to the Government Accountability Board show incumbent Sens. Rob Cowles of Green Bay and Luther Olsen of Ripon face the biggest financial challenges.

In the 10th District, Olsen raised $107,000, compared with $227,000 for Democratic challenger state Rep. Fred Clark of Baraboo. Clark had $163,000 in cash on hand, compared with just $71,000 for Olsen.

In the 2nd District, Cowles raised $101,000, compared with $177,000 for Democratic opponent Nancy Nusbaum. She had $134,000 in cash on hand, and he had just $62,000.

Democrats need to win three seats to gain majority control in the Senate, giving them the power to block the Republican agenda. Three Democratic state senators also face recall elections. Their latest financial disclosure reports are due Monday.

Other Republicans facing recall elections are Sens. Alberta Darling of River Hills, Randy Hopper of Fond du Lac, Dan Kapanke of La Crosse and Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls.

In the 10th District, fake Democrat and hardware store owner Isaac Weix raised just $450 beyond a $750 in-kind contribution from the state Republican Party. He faces Democrat Shelly Moore in Tuesday's primary, with the winner moving on to face Harsdorf.

Four other fake Democrats -- Otto Junkermann, Gladys Huber, Rol Church and John Buckstaff-- all reported just a $750 contribution from the state Republican Party with no other
money raised or spent.

Junkermann faces Nusbaum on Tuesday, with the winner moving on to face Cowles. Huber is running in the 8th District against state Rep. Sandy Pasch, with the winner moving on to face Darling.

Church is running against Rep. Fred Clark, with the winner moving on to face Olsen. Buckstaff faces Democrat Jessica King on Tuesday with
the winner taking on Hopper.

The other protest candidate, Smith, is running against Democratic state Rep. Jennifer Shilling, with the winner facing Kapanke.

View the original article here

Could Obama ignore Congress if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling? Yes, and he should, some experts say (The Ticket)

Obama brushed off question about whether the debt limit is constitutional at Wednesday press conference (Carolyn …

As both major parties debate their conditions for raising the nation's debt ceiling, some Senate Democrats and constitutional scholars are questioning whether the limit is constitutional in the first place.

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons told The Huffington Post this week that he's part of a group of lawmakers now examining whether, in the case that debt negotiations fail, the Treasury could ignore Congress and continue paying its bills on time.

"This is an issue that's been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default," Coons told Huffington Post reporters Ryan Grim and Samuel Haass. "[I]t's going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, 'Is there some way to save us from ourselves?' "

Critics of the debt limit cite the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states: "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." (Emphasis ours)

Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment is open to wide, and varying, interpretation and debate. The most basic question here is, does a limit on debt "question" the "validity" of the debt?

Legal scholar Garrett Epps, writing in The Atlantic in April, said that a case could easily made for simply ignoring the congressionally mandated debt limit.

"This provision makes clear that both the monies our nation owes to bondholders, and the sums promised in legislation to those receiving pensions set by law from the federal government, must be paid regardless of the political whims of the current congressional majority," Epps wrote.

In essence, Epps argues that Obama should stand before Congress and say, Tough luck--the Constitution says we can't default. Epps argued that in the event that Congress does not act, Obama should (and could) instruct the Treasury Department to issue "binding debt instruments on the world market sufficient to cover all the current obligations of the United States government, even in default of Congressional action to meet those obligations."

President Obama's own views on the subject, however, are unclear. During his press conference Wednesday, Obama dodged a question about the debt limit's constitutionality, telling NBC's Chuck Todd: "I'm not a Supreme Court justice, so I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on."

Obama understandably didn't want to show his cards by hashing out a plan for how he would act in the event Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling. But some observers have already outlined how he could--and still get away with it.

Writing in the Financial Times in April, Former Reagan adviser and Treasury official Bruce Bartlett said the Obama administration could justify ignoring Congress to ensure the nation pays its debts.

"The president would be justified in taking extreme actions to protect against a debt default. In the event that congressional irresponsibility makes default impossible to avoid, he should order the secretary of the Treasury to simply disregard the debt limit and sell whatever securities are necessary to raise cash to pay the nation's debts. They are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States and preventing default is no less justified than using American military power to protect against an armed invasion without a congressional declaration of war," Bartlett wrote. "Under those circumstances, when default is the only possible alternative, I believe that the president and the Treasury secretary would be justified in taking extraordinary action to prevent it, even if it means violating the debt limit."

However, if Obama were to follow that route, it's still unclear how the courts would rule.

Grim and Saass point to the 1935 Perry v. U.S Supreme Court ruling, which determined that the language in the Fourteenth Amendment does apply to the national debt. What's more, they observe, according to the majority opinion on the case, no act of Congress can undermine promises of debt payment from the federal government.

"To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor," wrote Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who presided over the case.

Even with that precedent, however, the specific debt limit as we know it today has not yet seen its day in court. Should the White House's negotiations with Congress on the debt ceiling fail, it will be up to Obama to decide whether he wants to start that fight, which would no doubt require years-long court battles to settle.

View the original article here

NRCC makes cable ad buy targeting Rep. Miller for vote to raise debt ceiling (Daily Caller)

The National Republican Congressional Committee is running a cable TV ad targeting Democratic Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina in his district, attacking him for his vote to raise the debt ceiling. The ad is part of an offensive launched today by the NRCC going after 11 House Democrats, including Miller, for voting to raise the debt ceiling.

The ad links raising the debt ceiling to fewer US jobs and a poor economy, a timely message given the disappointing jobs report that came out today showing unemployment having risen to 9.1 in May.

The NRCC is making robo-calls in other districts, but Miller is the only representative being targeted with a TV ad buy.

A Republican operative explained that “Miller’s district promises to get more Republican since he won’t be drawing his own district this time,” and that that is one of the reasons why the NRCC likely chose to target him more specifically.

See the ad here.

Read more stories from The Daily Caller
NRCC makes cable ad buy targeting Rep. Miller for vote to raise debt ceiling
Remember how you felt when you figured out how to ride a bike?
Levin defends Palin: 'I'm getting sick and tired of these smears by Krauthammer against her'
Romney: States like Texas render national health insurance reform impossible
Palin's clambake (not Romney) makes front page N.H. story

View the original article here