Will Foreign Corporate Money Flood Our Elections?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:31:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Kevin Drum and Mark Kleiman wonder:

Mark Kleiman nominates another unforeseen beneficiary: ["]One aspect of the ruling that hasn’t gathered much attention: as far as I can tell, the analysis doesn’t distinguish between domestic and foreign corporations....So the ruling allows Hugo Chavez to spend as much money as he wants to helping and harming American politicians. If the Russian, Saudi, and Chinese governments don’t currently have appropriate vehicles for doing so, you can count on it: they soon will. [. . .] Buying influence on the American government has to be the highest-leverage activity ever invented, and Justice Kennedy and his four accomplices just invited every oligarch and tyrant in the world to play. This is not just a threat to democracy; it’s a threat to sovereignty."

Not sure if Kleiman is right, but it is a wonderfully appealing line of populist attack available to the Democrats on Citizens United. Arlen Specter is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United. Part of the sell can be that it will keep foreign money out of our elections.

Speaking for me only

< They Send Letters . . . | How The Excise Tax Undermines A Populist Message >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Will Foreign Corporate Money Flood Our Elections? | 44 comments (44 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yes. Foreign funding already (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:29:51 AM EST

into one presidential campaign's coffers, at least, in 2008.

Please provide links to what you (none / 0) (#7)
by Politalkix on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:51:16 AM EST

are talking about. I tried to do a google search.
Found some material from 1996, not 2008.
Here is a link


Google this (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:33:50 AM EST

AP IMPACT: Campaigns take cash, seek details later

If you also need help in search skills, I can send a link to that.


I am getting better in my search skills (none / 0) (#20)
by Politalkix on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:53:01 AM EST

but thanks for offer to help. Anyways, you specifically mentioned "one presidential campaign's coffers" but the link you provided already mentioned 2 candidates.
Here is another link about how campaign contributions were reaching the coffers of a third candidate.
link2


: I had recalled discussion here (none / 0) (#24)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:30:03 PM EST

on TL of one. Then found the link for you to more in the followup. Glad you found even more now -- your search skills have improved marvelously in only minutes.

In 1996 the Chinese should've formed a corporation (none / 0) (#10)
by Dan the Man on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:01:47 AM EST

and given the money that way. Then conservatives would've defended Gore and Clinton from illegal political contributions allegations because the Chinese were just exercising their 1st amendment rights.

In any case, I sort of like the idea of Hugo Chavez helping to decide our next President.


: The climate change debate (none / 0) (#13)
by Politalkix on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:15:41 AM EST

in the next election will be between people receiving campaign contributions from Saudi/Venezuelan oil companies and Chinese Wind Technology/Electric car manufacturers. All the benefit of Americans, ofcourse! :-).

quite a week (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:42:27 AM EST

indeed
quite a year for that matter.

This about sums it up (none / 0) (#9)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:01:10 AM EST

From The National Review's The Corner

1. The Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's seat, sending their health-care takeover efforts into a tailspin.

The Supreme Court wiped out the central feature of McCain-Feingold, in a victory for free speech.

Air America declared bankruptcy.

UPDATE: A reader notes the arrival of this anniversary:
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. ...
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 22, 2009.
UPDATE 2: Another reader points to this:
The timetable to reach a global deal to tackle climate change lay in tatters on Wednesday after the United Nations waived the first deadline of the process laid out at last month's fractious Copenhagen summit.

I was beginning to (none / 0) (#15)
by JamesTX on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:23:13 AM EST

get a little worried by the way we started out the last year. But never fear. The left snatches defeat from the jaws of victory again.

OMG.

Rich lawyers in pickups helping their fellow working class constituents get things right. The only thing missing is the faux Texas accent.

The government is now a corporate subsidiary.

Obama, in his latest reflections, might now want to call George Lakoff for a fireside chat!


Scott Brown is a lawyer but (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:00:30 PM EST

his income from his law practice isn't all that great. Of course he was also a state senator and in the National Guard. Not sure how much time he had to practice law. link


He's (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:08:22 PM EST

A Lt. Col in the Reserves who serves as a JAG officer.


: Pretty sucky income (none / 0) (#41)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:54:42 PM EST

among attorneys :)

It is rulings and times like this... (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by kdog on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:33:15 AM EST

when I really start to wonder if the unwashed masses wouldn't be better served by all-out no rules anarchy and a fighting chance.

"But we need the government to protect us from all the rich powerful arseholes and corporations with no conscience" is the common retort, and its usually enough to pull me off the fence...hows our government protection workin' out now? If we want/need protection, maybe we should talk to the mafia because the government is little more than a protection racket for the rich and powerful. "Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid" you say?...these are mere bones to keep up us from pulling a Marie Antoinette on those in power.

If we're on our own, might as well make the rich and powerful be on their own too...they might have all the money and weapons, but we've got the numbers.

: I will settle for equal treatment (5.00 / 0) (#18)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:35:07 AM EST

so that I can deduct my political contributions, too.

The law against corporations (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by MKS on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:28:41 PM EST

contributing to campaigns goes back to Teddy Roosevelt. So, the Supreme Court's ruling is throwback to Robber-Barons....

If a Corporation is considered a citizen (none / 0) (#2)
by PatHat on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:34:50 AM EST

wouldn't the ruling only apply to US-based corporations?

Which brings up the basic question...why did the SC affirm that a corporation be considered a citizen?

The First Amendment (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:37:07 AM EST

applies to citizens and non-citizens alike.

the issue is not that corporations are "citizens," it is that they are "persons" afforded the same First Amendment rights as actual human beings.

A non-citizen in the U.S. has the full rights of a citizen under the First Amendment.


Ruling does not depend on 'corps are persons.' (none / 0) (#27)
by Ben Masel on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:44:06 PM EST

The 5th amendment deals with rights of persons, the 1st "Congress shall pass no law abridging..."


: Of course it depends on that (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 09:24:40 AM EST

Speech does not come from nowhere.

Foreign entities can own ... (none / 0) (#4)
by Demi Moaned on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:38:18 AM EST

US-based corporations IINM.


: How about (none / 0) (#5)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:40:51 AM EST

US subsidiaries (i.e. Toyota, Honda, etc.)

Hey, the argument doesn't have to (none / 0) (#8)
by observed on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:00:16 AM EST

be true. It's convincing enough fear mongering to work anyway.

: Have to be true (none / 0) (#12)
by waldenpond on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:04:14 AM EST

??. It is true. Any corporation with a branch in the US can pick any candidate it wants to defeat.

Barney Frank was on Maddow last night talking (none / 0) (#11)
by steviez314 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:02:37 AM EST

about how corporations are creations of law and are governed by securities law (under his committee's purview too) and that some of this ruling can be mitigated through securities laws if not campaign finance laws.

Tax deductability? Shareholder approvals? Any ideas here from corp law people?

I have a much simpler idea (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Dan the Man on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:19:27 AM EST

Just re-define the word "corporation" to exclude those who engage in political activity. So if any "corporation" tries to engage in political activity, it is no longer considered a "corporation" and lose the rights in being a corporation. This is basically how certain nonprofit organizations are handled.


I like this idea (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Zorba on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:41:33 AM EST

But I'm not a lawyer and so I don't even know how legally possible this is. It would certainly be easier than trying to amend the Constitution to eliminate the "personhood" of corporations.


Well, the Constitution doesn't (none / 0) (#21)
by observed on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:00:38 PM EST

directly define corporations as persons. Specter's proposed amendment would clarify the 14th amendment.


Whether corporations are "person" or not (none / 0) (#23)
by Dan the Man on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:14:16 PM EST

is unimportant because Congress can define "corporation" any way it wants to. Congress can re-define "corporation" so that nothing's a corporation. In that case, corporations would have no constitutional importance whatsoever.


: Corporations are defined by the States. (none / 0) (#30)
by Ben Masel on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:48:03 PM EST

Do it in the States (none / 0) (#28)
by Ben Masel on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:45:54 PM EST

Corps are creatures of the State where they're Chartered.


: How about using federal tax law to eliminate (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by steviez314 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:55:01 PM EST

the deductability of expenditures for political purposes?
And using fed securities laws to at least try any burden them with very onerous disclosure requirements?

Shareholder approval (none / 0) (#36)
by MKS on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:32:46 PM EST

would be good. Specific vote on each campaign, not the in-advance carte blanche of many corp resolutions.......


Plain language (none / 0) (#29)
by Ben Masel on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:46:56 PM EST

"Congress shall pass no law... abridging the Freedom of Speech.'

$ = freedom of speech? (none / 0) (#32)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:56:41 PM EST

Somehow, I don't think that's what the framers had in mind.


Can we work it to our advantage...? (none / 0) (#33)
by kdog on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:17:18 PM EST

I buy a dub with a crisp new Andrew Jackson, John Law pulls up lights a flashin'...I say back off dudes, I'm freedom of speechin' over here, take it up with Scalia.


: Somehow... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:40:55 PM EST

...I don't think that would work for us poor unwashed working stiffs.

Except for those little things (none / 0) (#34)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:21:56 PM EST

like lying under oath (abridging "speech", but it's still illegal), inciting a riot or violence (still, "speech", right?), slander, libel, etc...


I think Kleiman is on to something (none / 0) (#38)
by pmj6 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:48:36 PM EST

This decision is so self-evidently bad, with so many unintended and unanticipated consequences, that it has a very real potential of backfiring. Personally, I'm glad all of this money will now come out into the open instead of being laundered through PACs and bundlers and all the rest of the lobbying apparatus.

doodad (none / 0) (#39)
by jedimom on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:12:47 PM EST

oh pullleze, Obama got donations from foreign donors! and then there are DooDad and DooDadPro

pffft.

This seems like such a crazy time (none / 0) (#40)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:52:17 PM EST

I'm sure that just as crazy times took place before, it's just my turn to be aware. Not much fun though lately.

Another fertile line of attack (none / 0) (#42)
by RonK Seattle on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:26:41 PM EST

... may be to note that the decision necessarily extends to state and local elections, including judicial elections as conducted in many jurisdictions; that judges themselves are severely constrained in the conduct of their campaigns, and (usually) in their capacity to raise funds; that corporations (foreign and domestic) tend to have high-stakes, shrply focused interests before the courts, and before individual judges; and that members of the SCOTUS majority already decry the coarsening effect of campaign antics on judiciary dignity.

sovereignty (none / 0) (#43)
by Jlvngstn on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:57:43 AM EST

and how much money reported and not do we spend in other countries elections?

I like foreign money coming in, political bastads can compete with wall st bastads....

Corporate Personhood? (none / 0) (#45)
by Tom Degan on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 06:55:48 AM EST

Are corporations really persons?

Do corporations think?

Do corporations grieve when a loved one dies as a result of a lack of adequate health care?

If a corporation ever committed an unspeakable crime against the American people, could IT be sent to federal prison? (Note the operative word here: "It")

Has a corporation ever given its life for its country?

Has a corporation ever been killed in an accident as the result of a design flaw in the automobile it was driving?

Has a corporation ever written a novel that inspired millions?

Has a corporation ever risked its life by climbing a ladder to save a child from a burning house?

Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?

Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?

Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising on the horizon?

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?

Should corporations kiss on the first date?

Our lives - yours and mine - have more worth than any corporation. To say that the Supreme Court made a awful decision on Thursday is an understatement. Not only is it an obscene ruling - it's an insult to our humanity.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY