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

[Bfgrn]

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

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[Oddball]

Somebody get Charlie Trie, John Huang and Roger Tamraz on the horn, PDQ!

 

[Bfgrn]

The Robes...Unintended consequences of radical activist legislating from the bench

While political observers have dissected much of yesterday’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, one potentially huge (and probably unintended) consequence has gotten little notice: the impact the decision could have on foreign government spending on federal campaigns.

The ruling essentially gives corporations the same rights as individuals in their ability to spend freely on political advertising, even if those advertisements explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. This means that candidates who support, say, increased restrictions on tobacco products could find themselves up against the corporate treasury of say, a major American tobacco company. And even the fear of $10 million in attack ads blanketing the airways come re-election time may give sitting legislators pause before taking on moneyed industries.

But it’s one thing for U.S. firms to have their say. What about foreign companies that operate U.S. subsidiaries? Many of these, like American businesses, are owned by ordinary shareholders — but a host of others are owned, in whole or in part, by the foreign governments themselves.

One prominent examples is CITGO Petroleum Company — once the American-born Cities Services Company, but purchased in 1990 by the Venezuelan government-owned Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. The Citizens United ruling could conceivably allow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has sharply criticized both of the past two U.S. presidents, to spend government funds to defeat an American political candidate, just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his target.

And it’s not just Chavez. The Saudi government owns Houston’s Saudi Refining Company and half of Motiva Enterprises. Lenovo, which bought IBM’s PC assets in 2004, is partially owned by the Chinese government’s Chinese Academy of Sciences. And Singapore’s APL Limited operates several U.S. port operations. A weakening of the limit on corporate giving could mean China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S. could also have significant sway in American electioneering.

More...

 

[manu1959]

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

they already do......at least we will have a written record of it now.....all kidding aside....before mccain fiengold they could do it.....why the outrage now....

 

[Zona]

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

Lets get local..united health care caninfluence any health care policy.

How the hell does this help us? How is a corporation a person?

Damn this is just bad.

 

[Zona]

Somebody get Charlie Trie, John Huang and Roger Tamraz on the horn, PDQ!

PDQ? How old are you...?

Did you and your dame go out and cut a rug last weekend at the speakeasy?

 

[Annie]

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

Wow, a senior administration official agrees with Obama, who knew that pigs could fly?

President Wrong on Citizens United Case - Bradley A. Smith - The Corner on National Review Online

...The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

 

[Political Junky]

Corporatism is alive and well in the US.

 

[Bfgrn]

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

Wow, a senior administration official agrees with Obama, who knew that pigs could fly?

President Wrong on Citizens United Case - Bradley A. Smith - The Corner on National Review Online

...The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

WOW Annie...the President probably just talked to Gibbs and Emanuel and fired off a press release...I'm sure the President of the United States doesn't have access to any competent lawyers...

Gee, all the President of the United States had to do is call THIS guy...

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.

 

[Queen]

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

Wow, a senior administration official agrees with Obama, who knew that pigs could fly?

President Wrong on Citizens United Case - Bradley A. Smith - The Corner on National Review Online

...The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

You're source is incorrect, since the decision has nothing to do with campaign donations. It's about funding advertising for a candidate, not just an issue, as it was before this decision. So the ignorance is all yours.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let me see, Prince Alaweed's adviser Khalid Monsour got Obama into Harvard and Iraqi Oil for Food Fugitive Nahdmi Aucho funneled money through Rezko to buy the Obama's House and pay him $600,000 in land that only cost Obama $125,000.

Yeah, that foreign money can have an influence

 

[Oddball]

Let me see, Prince Alaweed's adviser Khalid Monsour got Obama into Harvard and Iraqi Oil for Food Fugitive Nahdmi Aucho funneled money through Rezko to buy the Obama's House and pay him $600,000 in land that only cost Obama $125,000.

Yeah, that foreign money can have an influence

 

[Neotrotsky]

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

Papa Obama did not mind foreign money when it came into his "war chest"

 

[Queen]

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.

 

[rdean]

Couldn't ya just die?

I was just reading about Chavez being able to destroy our economy, I mean even worse than the Republicans.

USATODAY.com - Has Citgo become a political tool for Hugo Chvez?

But now that Republicans have INVITED him to throw his money into our political process, he could potentially buy a few politicians and live a much happier life.

Republicans are PROUD at what they have done. Remember, it doesn't matter who owns them, corporations are people too. And unlike those real people at GITMO, corporations deserve all the American rights our constitution can offer.

Iraq
Afghanistan
the aftermath of Katrina
the Justice department
the EPA
Letting Bin Laden go
the economy

none of that was enough, Bush - the gift that just keeps on giving.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

 

[dilloduck]

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.

no worse than Soros

 

[Bfgrn]

Couldn't ya just die?

I was just reading about Chavez being able to destroy our economy, I mean even worse than the Republicans.

USATODAY.com - Has Citgo become a political tool for Hugo Chvez?

But now that Republicans have INVITED him to throw his money into our political process, he could potentially buy a few politicians and live a much happier life.

Republicans are PROUD at what they have done. Remember, it doesn't matter who owns them, corporations are people too. And unlike those real people at GITMO, corporations deserve all the American rights our constitution can offer.

Iraq
Afghanistan
the aftermath of Katrina
the Justice department
the EPA
Letting Bin Laden go
the economy

none of that was enough, Bush - the gift that just keeps on giving.

As much as I detest this ruling, it exposes the right for what they are. They can no longer use accusations of sovereignty, states rights, or individualism...they OWN them. A corporation is collectivism that allows individuals to circumvent taking personal responsibility...

24 States’ Laws Open to Attack After Campaign Finance Ruling

 

[Bfgrn]

Couldn't ya just die?

I was just reading about Chavez being able to destroy our economy, I mean even worse than the Republicans.

USATODAY.com - Has Citgo become a political tool for Hugo Chvez?

But now that Republicans have INVITED him to throw his money into our political process, he could potentially buy a few politicians and live a much happier life.

Republicans are PROUD at what they have done. Remember, it doesn't matter who owns them, corporations are people too. And unlike those real people at GITMO, corporations deserve all the American rights our constitution can offer.

Iraq
Afghanistan
the aftermath of Katrina
the Justice department
the EPA
Letting Bin Laden go
the economy

none of that was enough, Bush - the gift that just keeps on giving.

As much as I detest this ruling, it exposes the right for what they are. They can no longer use accusations of activist courts, sovereignty, states rights, or individualism...now they OWN them. A corporation is collectivism that allows individuals to circumvent taking personal responsibility...

24 States’ Laws Open to Attack After Campaign Finance Ruling