President is right: foreign-controlled corporations could influence our elections

[manu1959]

it is against the law for a foreign citizen to give money to a campaign.....

 

[Bfgrn]

it is against the law for a foreign citizen to give money to a campaign.....

Whose law, ours? Do you really think that would stop someone even IF it were detected? Do you then think the US would be able to obtain extradition?

 

[Oddball]

it is against the law for a foreign citizen to give money to a campaign.....

Whose law, ours? Do you really think that would stop someone even IF it were detected? Do you then think the US would be able to obtain extradition?

Why don't you ask Bubba Clintoon, Algore the Monk, John Huang, Charlie Trie and/or Roger Tamraz?

 

[Bfgrn]

it is against the law for a foreign citizen to give money to a campaign.....

Whose law, ours? Do you really think that would stop someone even IF it were detected? Do you then think the US would be able to obtain extradition?

Why don't you ask Bubba Clintoon, Algore the Monk, John Huang, Charlie Trie and/or Roger Tamraz?

It's past your bedtime..the street light are on...

 

[manu1959]

it is against the law for a foreign citizen to give money to a campaign.....

Whose law, ours? Do you really think that would stop someone even IF it were detected? Do you then think the US would be able to obtain extradition?

yes us law....having run a campaign and been in charge of the finances and the reporting......if you accept the money you and your candidate get busted fines and jail time are possible and yes the person would be arrested.....

 

[Oddball]

Whose law, ours? Do you really think that would stop someone even IF it were detected? Do you then think the US would be able to obtain extradition?

Why don't you ask Bubba Clintoon, Algore the Monk, John Huang, Charlie Trie and/or Roger Tamraz?

It's past your bedtime..the street light are on...

Just as I thought...It's no concern to you when the law is actually broken.

You'd rather screech about imaginary booger men hiding under your bed.

Stooge.

 

[Meister]

A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: “There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."

The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”

Read more: White House: Obama is right about Supreme Court decision - Mike Allen and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Barry lied. He didn't even read the decision.

 

[rdean]

it is against the law for a foreign citizen to give money to a campaign.....

Absolutely true, however, American corporations are now seen as "US Citizens", even though they are "owned by foreigners". States give corporations charters. Once a state has given a charter to a corporation, it becomes an American Corporation. Even if it's owned by Hugo Chavez or "China". Because that company is now an "American Citizen", it can spend every cent of it's profits in American Elections.

So what we are saying is an American Citizen "owned" by foreigners can spend as much as it wants on American Elections.

 

[rdean]

A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: “There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."

The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”

Read more: White House: Obama is right about Supreme Court decision - Mike Allen and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Barry lied. He didn't even read the decision.

Obama taught "Constitutional Law" for 10 years at the University level. He's no George friggen Bush. I'm pretty sure Obama knows what he is talking about. Besides, every lawyer in the US agrees.

Republicans - Don't believe scientists
Republicans - Don't believe lawyers

Who do they believe? Michelle Bachman.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why don't you ask Bubba Clintoon, Algore the Monk, John Huang, Charlie Trie and/or Roger Tamraz?

It's past your bedtime..the street light are on...

Just as I thought...It's no concern to you when the law is actually broken.

You'd rather screech about imaginary booger men hiding under your bed.

Stooge.

You know what DUD..e...I've spent over 30 years calling on thousands of corporations as a rep for John Deere, Caterpillar and Case...

I don't have to imagine, I KNOW...

 

[Oddball]

Whatever, you poseur.

 

[driveby]

As dilloduck stated, the left doesn't have a problem with Soros doing it ....

 

[rdean]

Bradley A. Smith (born 1958) is a former Commissioner, Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and currently serves as the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio

Post-FEC career
After leaving the FEC, Smith returned to teaching at Capital University, and founded a non-profit organization, the Center for Competitive Politics, to promote deregulation of campaign finance.

LOL no wonder he's spouting off about campaign funding instead of what the decision is actually about.

It's about the ability for a corporation to spend unlimited amounts of money advertising for or against a candidate.

Previously they were allowed to do this advertising for or against an issue. Like the way the Mormon Church (yes religious entities are included in this ruling too) spent millions on ads against gay marriage in California. That was funding an issue. Now they can do this for a candidate too.

Hey maybe the Taleban and Al Qaeda can spend money advertising for a candidate. Won't that be awesome.

HAMAS had phone banks operating for Obama

Yea, what a threat - "HAMAS" with all their BILLIONS of dollars.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lets see......

We can have the Saudis help determine our energy policy
China can help establish our export policy
Mexico can set our immigration policy


Thanks Supreme Court

Don't forget Russian companies having an influence on Military Policy. After all, they own the only mill on the West Coast that can roll armor plate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bradley A. Smith (born 1958) is a former Commissioner, Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and currently serves as the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio

Post-FEC career
After leaving the FEC, Smith returned to teaching at Capital University, and founded a non-profit organization, the Center for Competitive Politics, to promote deregulation of campaign finance.

LOL no wonder he's spouting off about campaign funding instead of what the decision is actually about.

It's about the ability for a corporation to spend unlimited amounts of money advertising for or against a candidate.

Previously they were allowed to do this advertising for or against an issue. Like the way the Mormon Church (yes religious entities are included in this ruling too) spent millions on ads against gay marriage in California. That was funding an issue. Now they can do this for a candidate too.

Hey maybe the Taleban and Al Qaeda can spend money advertising for a candidate. Won't that be awesome.

HAMAS had phone banks operating for Obama

Really? From the Hollow Moon?

No site listed, assumed to be a fact pulled out of your ass.

 

[driveby]

LOL no wonder he's spouting off about campaign funding instead of what the decision is actually about.

It's about the ability for a corporation to spend unlimited amounts of money advertising for or against a candidate.

Previously they were allowed to do this advertising for or against an issue. Like the way the Mormon Church (yes religious entities are included in this ruling too) spent millions on ads against gay marriage in California. That was funding an issue. Now they can do this for a candidate too.

Hey maybe the Taleban and Al Qaeda can spend money advertising for a candidate. Won't that be awesome.

HAMAS had phone banks operating for Obama

Really? From the Hollow Moon?

No site listed, assumed to be a fact pulled out of your ass.

Don't you have some temperature numbers to manipulate ? .........

 

[Old Rocks]

As dilloduck stated, the left doesn't have a problem with Soros doing it ....

Come on, dumb ass, Soros is as much a citizen as you are. In fact, probably more of one, since he is naturalized, and had to pass tests that you probably could not.

 

[Old Rocks]

HAMAS had phone banks operating for Obama

Really? From the Hollow Moon?

No site listed, assumed to be a fact pulled out of your ass.

Don't you have some temperature numbers to manipulate ? .........

Don't you have some reality to catch up with?

 

[driveby]

As dilloduck stated, the left doesn't have a problem with Soros doing it ....

Come on, dumb ass, Soros is as much a citizen as you are. In fact, probably more of one, since he is naturalized, and had to pass tests that you probably could not.

Well golly gee, why don't we all just elect him as the next president.........

 

[Old Rocks]

A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: “There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."

The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”

Read more: White House: Obama is right about Supreme Court decision - Mike Allen and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Barry lied. He didn't even read the decision.

Really? Seems that Justice Stevens said exactly what the President said.

And these are the Justices that gave us George W. Bush. We all know how well that worked out.