Supreme Court - campaign spending

Uh, no.
"..... the court overruled section 441a of the campaign-finance law, which had banned all corporate spending on elections. The case did not concern, nor did the court address, section 441e, which prohibits foreign corporations from making any "contribution or donation of money or other thing of value … in connection with a Federal, State or local election."

 

It is trivial for anyone, e.g., foreign companies and foreign individuals, to charter a new company in the US and then do anything that they want regarding pouring money in to influence our political process.

 

I'm interested in what you know and when you knew it!

Seriously, please provide links for your assertion. I'd like to be enlightened, and this isn't snarky. It's part of my political science studies/interests so I always need to keep ideas in mind for a thesis.

Definitely not what our original "framers" had in mind. But I also know they couldn't anticipate billion-dollar 501(c) non-profits, backed by extremely wealthy individuals, pouring money into and subverting the political process either. That's the giant loophole that should have been plugged first.

I say don't vote, it only encourages the rascals.

 

Good question.

Many US companies are subsidiaries of foreign companies or foreign owned:
Toyota, Nissan, Honda & Volkswagen do all the USA business thru USA registered companies.
CITCO is now owned by Venezuela.
British Petrolium owns one or two big US oil companies.


It has been suggested that to minimize US taxes the auto companies buy components at high prices from their own countries, thus minimizing profits on US sold cars, while maximizing profits for parent companies. California has tried to change tax laws to prevent this practice without success.

Japan, Netherlands, UK, and Japan have been the leading investors in the USA for many years. Now China and some middle-east counties are increasing their investments in the US.

The other area where foreign owned companies can contribute to politicians is thru PACs - US employees donate to their company PAC and then the PAC conducts lobbying. Thus the money is from US citizens.

The impact of the ruling would make for an interesting thesis in political science.

 

Yes, the ruling changed none of this, and if you read U.S.C. 441e it implies if a corporation is partly based or operates in the U.S. then it is not necessarily considered a "foreign principal." Thus if you have Toyota or any other foreign corp. with a factory here, with U.S. citizens in the employ of that corporation, those citizens are specifically excluded because they are not "foreign nationals."
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/2/14/I/441e
Also a nice discussion on American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/media_insiders_ousted_by_citiz.html
I particularly enjoy how the authors point out that corporations like GE, the media giants, etc. have the ability to influence the political leanings of their subsidiaries, and thus influencing Congress and the political process.

 

What is interesting about GE and the media giants/Pac's "unfair" influence is that the Supreme Court decided to level the playing field so to speak and basically allow blanket coverage over the American people. I guess one bad law deserves another. If there was a loophole as they say, wouldn't it have made more sense to plug that loophole to protect democracy rather than to rule in favor of business over the people. But as we all know, or should know, justice is NOT blind! Swearing an oath of office does not wash away all your lifes experiences. Funny how in America, when you reach 50, your in dangerous territory as far as employability, your just hittin your stride on the Supreme Court. Heck, your just considered a kid. I'm in favor of term limits for these clowns as well. They may represent justice for democracy but for whom?

 

If you're under 50 and on the SCOTUS you're definitely a young pup! I've read scandals about how some of the most elderly and mediocre justices have snoozed through many arguments, then their clerks write the opinions, so the old guys are just occupying space. Must be nice to be so "tenured."

I personally am in favor of more freedoms vs. fewer, but that's the libertarian streak in me.

 

I'd hate to be the person cleaning those shorts....can ya imagine?

 

Ha, good one! They have "people" to do that sort of thing. Ya know, lowly underpaid grunts. Probably staff members!

 

http://www.legalzoom.com/sem/incorporate-or-llc-start-now.asp?WT.srch=1&se=google&q=incorporation&refcd=GO325219s_incorporation&tsacr=GO4533816607&cm_mmc_o=7BBTkwCjCWwc%20C%20GEgBy5ByzfbBECjCGEgBy5ByzfbBEjs8KCbEgBy5ByzfbBECjCbEgBy5ByzfbBE&gclid=CMi24vjW358CFRcdawod9WACHA

 

And -- ???? As long as human beings are basically sinful they will find a way around the law. Look at Clinton selling overnight stays to various foreign visitors at the WH in exchange for political contributions. Still doesn't mean it's legal, and definitely not right, but I guess justice eventually prevailed with the ol' Willie. Er, I mean, Bill Clinton.

 

And what? You asked for a link. I provided a link? The situation is that treating corporations the same as people in politics is silly. Should corporations be allowed to buy American elections? Should foreigners be allowed to buy American elections? Should foreign corporations be allowed to buy American elections? If you say no to any of these questions then one cannot allow corporations to buy American elections, foreign or not. It is trival to start a new corporation in this country. You seemed not to believe me. I provided a link.

And --- ??? And then you go off talking about a topic that I have no clue how it is relevent to what I thought that was being discussed. We were discussing LEGALLY allowing corporations to buy American elections. If that is allowed then you can't really stop foreigners or foreign corporations from buying American elections since it is so easy to start an American corporation. You then start talking about illegal seemingly irrelevent situations?

 

When in doubt, divert the conversation to slick Willie, and throw his beer drinking brother Billy into the mix to boot. Yeah, that's the ticket. come to think of it, I think go ol willie is responsible for the gigantic deficit Bush left behind. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. Thank God corporations enjoy more rights! I lost a lot of sleep over that one.

Abner

 

Oh my.... I've sat at my desk at work today, and re-written my post on this thing about 12 times. It's so bad that I had to make a document on my desktop so that I can come back to it every once in a while when the thoughts settle. This is completely frightening. To those that argue that this is simply a case of free speech, I can't disagree more. This is sick, vile, abhorrent, disgusting, corporate/political synergistic blood-sucking, oppressive, manipulative, predatory nastiness at work. I'm not even a liberal, per se. The fundamental problem is that as a general rule, the American public lacks the ability (work ethic) to critically examine a candidate/issue, and that we allow our world view to be spoon fed to us by whoever is on the tube/newspaper/yahoo/degreeforum. Well, now we take that problem and magnify it by allowing absolutely unbridled corporate spin-doctoring of the truth. I have to stop....blood pressure getting out of control.

Please, somebody at least show me where the logic/rationale/"correctness" is in Justice Kennedy's argument. I have read the ruling, and the opinions, and it just turns my stomach. If I could at least understand the thinking behind the ruling, maybe it would help me de-personalize this and view it as yet another academic exercise that will straighten itself out through legislation.

ok, really, I have to stop.

 

IMHO, it is the most blatantly politically motivated Supreme Court decision since Gore vs Bush in 2000.

The legislature has to act to restore some political integrity to corporate campaign funding.

 

It would be comical if these things happened in movies instead of real life. The day will come that this decision will cause Reps to lose an election, and they will have nothing to say.

Necessary Disclaimer to the Public: Irony isn't enmity. Please note, I have no political loyalties/standpoints/opinions AT ALL. Flame someone who does.

 

It would be comical if these things happened in movies instead of real life. The day will come that this decision will cause Reps to lose an election, and they will have nothing to say.

Necessary Disclaimer to the Public: Irony isn't enmity. I have no political loyalties/standpoints/opinions AT ALL. Flame someone who does.

 

What you call outsourcing jobs is actually the economic development of the Third World. The U.S. government has spent a large amount of money in the last 50 years to help developing countries improve their infrastructure and economic base. Why would we do that unless the underlying national consensus of both parties was that the future of manufacturing lay in the Third World? The theory behind foreign aid was to improve the conditions in underdeveloped countries so we could eventually move manufacturing there as the U.S. shifts to an information-based, green, sustainable service economy.

 

Call it what you want. I call it outsourcing for cheap labor.

Abner