So much for public financing

[dt3]

Representation will still be given to the corporations just as we have representation. We may not like who was chosen to represent us but we have the option of replacing him come the next election. But if we are effectively cut out of the process by allowing the corporations pick and chose who wins, then who is representing us?
There is a huge difference in having a voice in who gets to represent you and buying your representative.

The government works for the people. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Once you give multinational corporations the power to buy and sell our government, they will be working for them. And think about that for a moment... Most of the corporations are multinational with members of the board from all over the world. Do you really want them to have a say in our politics?



You can find numerous instances where foreign interests buying into our corporations and financial institutions. And you want them to have a voice in our politics?

I don't, I want that voice to lie solely in the hands of the people.

I don't want them to have a voice in our politics, I've said a couple of times now that I completely disagree with this ruling. I was just raising an alternative viewpoint that hadn't been mentioned.

 

[Accountable]

What do ya'll think about the Prez chastising the Supremes in his speech last night?

 

[dt3]

What do ya'll think about the Prez chastising the Supremes in his speech last night?

I know it's wrong of me to make assumptions based on race, but I always figured he'd be a Diana Ross fan :dunno

Seriously though, I believe the Executive's only check over the SC would be the nomination of new Justices, so it's not like he can do anything about it for a while...

 

[Tim]

I think he can do something about it and he will.

He can't overturn the decision, but he can put checks in place to ensure that foreign corporations aren't putting money into our federal elections, and that's a door left wide open by the supreme court decision..

 

[Azazel]

What do ya'll think about the Prez chastising the Supremes in his speech last night?

​

 

[nova]

What do ya'll think about the Prez chastising the Supremes in his speech last night?

Longstanding protocol says the justices in attendence, members of the military and other groups don't stand and applaud for political and policy points because they're supposed to be a-political. To criticize them to their face in a forum where decorum demands they sit and take it, especially while there are several hundred other people standing up and appluading your political point against them, is bad form to say the least....

I also doubt there will be a justice in the house this time next year...

 

[Tim]

Yeah, there suppose to be a-political... but when was the last time they were? Whether the court is leaning left or right, it is usually making some political point or creating new law.

 

[retro]

Yeah, there suppose to be a-political... but when was the last time they were? Whether the court is leaning left or right, it is usually making some political point or creating new law.

I really don't see how you think that the Supreme Court made a political point or created new law in this case though. They made a ruling, which whether you like it or not, goes with the Constitution. If people feel strongly about this, then the Constitution needs to be amended to limit or eliminate corporate campaign funding, and while we're at it, eliminate Unions from being able to as well.

 

[nova]

Their rulings as to the law may have political and policy implications but the justices themselves are not running around playing public political games. There may be private politics amongst the 9 of them but they certainly don't play public politics.

Thats the whole reasoning for having lifetime appointments is so they can make rulings based on the law their concience without fear of political repurcussions....

Regardless of that, its still bad form to basically gang and up and criticize supreme court justices in an open forum where they can't respond.

Also, in a strategic sense, how open to arguments made by the Obama admin do you think said court is going to be now? Potentially he may have influenced every case going before the court for the remainder of his term in office.

 

[dt3]

I think he can do something about it and he will.

He can't overturn the decision, but he can put checks in place to ensure that foreign corporations aren't putting money into our federal elections, and that's a door left wide open by the supreme court decision..

There already are checks in place for exactly this situation:

2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) -- prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making "directly or indirectly" a donation or expenditure "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication."
PolitiFact | Why Alito shook his head: Obama exaggerates impact of Supreme Court ruling on foreign companies

Here's the exact text ( I added the bold):

(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make - (A) a contribution or donation of money or other 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; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. (b) "Foreign national" defined As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means - (1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or (2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

So what more, exactly, does Obama need to do about this? I'm sure, being a lawyer and a politician, he's aware of this law. So why even bring it up in the State of the Union?

 

[Tim]

That law excludes foreign corporations from donating to our federal elections. But it says nothing about American corporations that have foreign nationals on the board of directors or have foreign senior executives.

Here is a bill being drawn up by Congressman John Hall

Newsroom

 

[dt3]

That law excludes foreign corporations from donating to our federal elections. But it says nothing about American corporations that have foreign nationals on the board of directors or have foreign senior executives.

Here is a bill being drawn up by Congressman John Hall

Newsroom

It says any foreign national, directly or indirectly, can't do it. I assume that would include a foreign national on a board, because that would be donating indirectly. However, I can see the desire to have it explicitly stated, which makes Congressman Hall's bill a good idea.

But where does Obama come into play here? He doesn't make the law, he "executes" it, hence the name of his branch of government. How can he set this as a goal of his administration if it's something that doesn't even directly involve him? In my opinion, it has no place in a State of the Union address and calling out the Supreme Court Justices was just plain untasteful.

 

[Tim]

Al Franken has also introduced a bill. Here is his statement...

Since 1974, federal law has banned foreign companies from giving or spending in American elections. Nothing in our current laws, however, explicitly prohibits foreign companies from creating American subsidiaries or getting control of American companies and using them to flood the airwaves in support of their preferred candidates. Citizens United gives companies unlimited power to do that - and does not distinguish between American companies and companies that are owned or controlled by foreign interests. "I was pleased to hear the President recognize the need for this bill in his address last night," said Sen. Franken. "I think we can all agree that foreign interests have no place in American elections."
The "American Elections Act of 2010" was developed in coordination with Professor David Schultz of Hamline University School of Business in Minnesota.

"The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was an attack on democracy and fair elections," said Professor Schultz. "It undid laws seeking to regulate corporations across the country and in Minnesota that go back over 60 years. As a result of it corporate money will flood into Minnesota, threatening the basic integrity of our elections and the power of citizens to control their own government. Senator Franken's bill is an important first step in addressing Citizens United and preventing money from further destroying our elections in Minnesota."

The "American Elections Act of 2010" will keep foreign interests out of our elections by:

· Banning election contributions and spending by corporations that are controlled or highly influenced by foreign nationals (foreign governments, companies, and persons). This includes:

- Corporations that receive most of their financing from foreign nationals.

- Corporations where foreign nationals hold a controlling share of stock (as defined under leading corporate law) or a majority of the Board of Directors.

- Corporations that allow foreign nationals to control or participate in their political activities - including ad spending, donations, and political action committees.

· Requiring all corporations to certify, before giving or spending in elections, that they are in compliance with these requirements.

· Requiring all corporations to disclose in their political advertising how much of their company is controlled by foreign nationals, or if this isn't possible, how much of their financing comes from foreign nationals.
The "American Elections Act of 2010" is supported by Common Cause, People for the American Way, Common Cause Minnesota, and MPIRG.

 

[Tim]

50 years ago none of this would have been a problem but today there are many large multinational corporations whose interests don't lie with one country, nor do they have allegiance to one country.

 

[dt3]

50 years ago none of this would have been a problem but today there are many large multinational corporations whose interests don't lie with one country, nor do they have allegiance to one country.

Again, I agree. But why did Obama feel the need to bring it up in his State of the Union address, especially in the way he did? How can he promise to do something about it, when in fact it's completely out of his hands except signing the paper?

 

[Accountable]

Is placing an ad on TV or in the paper a political contribution, or simply airing an opinion? It gets sticky.

I hear that Justice Roberts mouthed the words "Not true" or something like that when Obama slagged them.

I think it's rather interesting how loose and confident he was to talk such shit once he's assured that no one will call him on it during the speech.

 

[boombala]

Again, I agree. But why did Obama feel the need to bring it up in his State of the Union address, especially in the way he did? How can he promise to do something about it, when in fact it's completely out of his hands except signing the paper?

----------------------
He knows how unpopular this decision is with the voters. What better time to bring up the issue. IMO, he would have been remiss in not addressing it; altho, as someone in this forum pointed out, he may have put his administration at odds with the Court for the remainder of his time in office.

Just a guess but I think he wanted the viewers to know that he thinks this is an unwise decision. He follwed his criticism by urging both parties "to pass a bill that corrects some of these problems"

Obama Criticizes Supreme Court - CBS News Video

I was outraged by the Court's decision and I applaud Obama for speaking out against the decision.

 

[nova]

Is placing an ad on TV or in the paper a political contribution, or simply airing an opinion? It gets sticky.

Thats a knotty problem that no one who opposes this is really addressing.

Whether you are a US citizen, foreign national or intelligent space alien, if you are on US soil you have a protected right to free speech.

Its almost as bad an argument as the "money isn't speech" argument. Neither are things like airplanes and computers but we would easily recognize that restricting the use of airplanes and computers in campaigns is a speech infringement.

A similar argument is that money isn't abortion, but a law that prevents people from spending $$ on abortions would be unconstitutional under existing jurisprudence....

 

[Accountable]

We don't allow corporations to vote; we shouldn't allow them to voice opinions. The exceptions of course would be those organizations explicitly created to express political opinions, but Ford Motors and UAW should have no voice and no dollar in politics.

 

[Tim]

It won't be long before the corporations are allowed to vote... and I'm not talking a paper ballot like we get, but one of the votes from the electoral college