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

[The Rabbi]

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.

Dean, do you ever tire of posting lies and ignorant statements?
All corporations are barred from contributing to political campaigns. Period.

 

[Claudette]

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

President Obama and the Courts - WSJ.com

In the case of Barack Obama v. Supreme Court of the United States, that was some oral argument on Wednesday night. With the Justices arrayed a few feet in front of him in the House chamber, President Obama blistered their recent decision defending free political speech for corporations and unions. As Democrats in Congress and Cabinet members rose and applauded around them, the Justices sat stern-faced, save for Samuel Alito, who was seen shaking his head and mouthing the words "Not true."

Bravo, Justice Alito.

We're not among those who think the Supreme Court is above criticism. Especially in recent decades as the judiciary has become more political, and has encroached on the powers of Congress and the executive, politicians in the other branches have an obligation to defend their powers. Mr. Obama may have exhibited bad manners in sandbagging the Justices without warning on national TV, but he has every right to disagree with their rulings.

But could a graduate of Harvard Law School at least get his facts right? "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Mr. Obama averred. "Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Let's unpack the falsehoods. The Court didn't reverse "a century of law," but merely two more recent precedents, one from 1990 and part of another from 2003. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce in 1990 had set the Court in a markedly new direction in limiting independent corporate campaign expenditures. This is the outlier case that needed to be overturned.

Mr. Obama is also a sudden convert to stare decisis. Does he now believe that all Court precedents of a certain duration are sacrosanct, such as Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal, 1896), which was overturned by Brown v. Board (1954)? Or Bowers v. Hardwick (a ban on sodomy, 1986), which was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas (2003)?

The President's claim about "foreign entities" bankrolling U.S. political campaigns is also false, since the Court did not overrule laws limiting such contributions. His use of "foreign" was a conscious attempt to inflame public and Congressional opinion against the Court. Coming from a President who fancies himself a citizen of the world, and who has gone so far as foreswear American exceptionalism, this leap into talk-show nativism is certainly illuminating. What will they think of that one in the cafes of Berlin?

Desperate Presidents do desperate things, and Mr. Obama's riff against the Supremes reveals a President who—let us try to follow Mr. Obama's admonition about changing the "tone" of our politics—lacks grace under pressure.

Glad you posted this because this is what I've been hearing on the news. Its not an open invitation for foreign sources to contribute to anything. Obama taught law he must surely know what the original decision said and what this decisioni means. Could there be loopholes?? Probably but those can be closed if they do exist.

NO the Dems have no problem taking money from all the big Unions but I think Corps will side with the Reps and they would be able to contribute more money if their boards of directors approve. I can see why Dems are upset.

 

[uscitizen]

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

A foreign citizen yes, but a foreign controlled corporation with a US presence?

 

[Bfgrn]

You have no problem with a terrorist organization helping a candidate for POTUS? I wonder if you would feel the same had they been pitching for McCain?

I find your attitude towards this to be impressively stupid.

On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain

As the Washington Post detailed Wednesday, Al Qaeda cadres see a McCain as the best bet to perpetuate the policies of President Bush they see bankrupting the United States and the West:

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush...

...It further suggested that a terrorist strike might swing the election to McCain and guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in the Islamic world.

"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda," said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. "Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America."

Again and again you link to rubbish to back up your argument. I find it laughable, I really do.

Simple fact, the POTUS was wrong. Shocking as it may be, he was wrong.

Rubbish? Laughable? I totally agree...the yellow journalism slanderous News Max attacks on Obama and the patented guilt by association that pea brains swallow by eliciting FEAR through uses of 'names' of people that sound so scary and diabolical IS rubbish. But it's not laughable...it is slander...

Let me ask you a question to ponder...if Khalid al-Mansour is this scurrilous and diabolical person, WHY would his endorsement have any weight the most Ivy of the Ivy League law schools?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

A foreign citizen yes, but a foreign controlled corporation with a US presence?

Dumshit. Every corporation is barred from giving campaign contributions, foreign or domestic.

 

[Annie]

Bfrgn and Queen too!

Adam Winkler: Alito Was Rude (But Right)

Adam WinklerProfessor at UCLA School of Law
Posted: January 28, 2010 10:51 AM
Alito Was Rude (But Right)
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made headlines last night when he nodded and mouthed "It's not true" in response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address. Facing six of the nine Justices, who were sitting right up front, Obama criticized the recent landmark Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate political speech.

Alito was right. The president was wrong about the Supreme Court decision. Obama said, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

Halfway through this sentence, Alito started to nod vigorously to express his disagreement. Then he mouthed, "It's not true." Some people are saying that Alito is this year's Joe Wilson, who infamously shouted, "You lie" during an Obama speech to Congress.

There are a lot of grounds to criticize the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision. It will allow corporations to spend shareholder money to influence the election of candidates many of those shareholders don't support. And it does open up a loophole that allows foreign corporations to influence federal elections through their U.S. subsidiaries.

But the Court did not overturn "a century of law." The provision upended by the Court was only seven years old. It was a novel innovation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law adopted during the Bush Administration...

Alito: 'Simply Not True' - CBS News Video

Even Katie Couric chastises Obama.

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Challenge to Obama - Request Special Counsel As To Foreign Contributions

Lots of links:

...Nonetheless, if Obama really is concerned about foreign campaign donations, then Obama should request that Attorney General Eric Holder (or an Acting Attorney General since Holder likely has a conflict) appoint a special counsel with the power to investigate, and if justified, prosecute violations of the laws, and conspiracies to violate the laws, forbidding foreign contributions.

And the place the special counsel can start is with Obama's 2008 campaign, which disabled security features in its credit card web portal so as to allow donors to evade restrictions on numerous aspects of the federal campaign laws, including the prohibition on foreign contributions:

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed....

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.​

That the Obama campaign received foreign donations as a result of this scheme may be the only thing agreed-upon by both Pamela Geller and Charles Johnson. Indeed, Obama for America has admitted receiving foreign contributions. The fact that the Federal Election Commission is not investigating the allegations necessitates a special counsel.

These laws barring foreign contributions remain untouched by the recent Supreme Court ruling, so Obama need not worry about the validity of the relevant laws on the books. (If Obama didn't understand that prior to the SOTU, he surely understands that now.)

The federal conspiracy laws surely could be used to prosecute such a scheme, if the investigation bears out the necessary elements of a criminal conspiracy to violate the campaign laws. The fact that some or all of the contributions were returned after negative publicity does not negate any criminal conspiracy.

So President Obama, with all due respect, I call upon you to request that Attorney General Holder appoint a special counsel to investigate and prosecute any and all crimes committed in connection with foreign campaign contributions during the 2008 presidential election cycle.

Or was your attack on the Supreme Court just words?